Page 21 of 123 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171121 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 1229

Thread: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't give a crap if it's a right, it's discriminatory to give it to one group of people and not to another. That's the whole argument. If you can't get away allowing white people to marry, but not black people, you can't allow letting straight people marry but not gay people. The only basis the Prop 8 people have for claiming gays shouldn't marry is religion and religion cannot be used as an argument in a government court.
    Yes, it's discrimination. The question is rather or not the discrimination is justified. The law has a long history of treating the sexes differently when it's justified, such as separate bathrooms or a female TSA agent searching women's luggage.

    Discrimination by itself isn't a bad thing. It's just a tool and it has to be used properly.

  2. #202
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't see why; we don't ban any other marriage on the basis that one or both parties has any other birth defect.
    Absolutely true and valid -- marriage should not be banned because one or both partners -- either the man or the woman -- have a birth defect(s).

    Thus similar but civil union domestic partnerships (a civil union domestic partnership being the class that marriage fals in in the eyes of government) should not be banned because one or both partners of those relationships has a birth defect(s).


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Homosexuality can be a birth defect and ssm still be allowed.
    Except that civil union domestic SS partnerships is not "marriage", by definition.

    Such SS couple civil union domestic partnerships should be allowed and recognized by government and private enterprise ..

    .. But they are rightly called homarriages, not marriages.

    A win-win scenario for everyone.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  3. #203
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes, it's discrimination. The question is rather or not the discrimination is justified. The law has a long history of treating the sexes differently when it's justified, such as separate bathrooms or a female TSA agent searching women's luggage.

    Discrimination by itself isn't a bad thing. It's just a tool and it has to be used properly.
    I would argue that discrimination *IS* inherently a bad thing. Separate bathrooms and TSA agents are really choices, they are not mandated by law. A man doesn't get arrested if he goes into the women's restroom. They are rules designed for the comfort of the people involved. Come up with a better example of something that is actually legally-mandated discrimination.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I would argue that discrimination *IS* inherently a bad thing. Separate bathrooms and TSA agents are really choices, they are not mandated by law. A man doesn't get arrested if he goes into the women's restroom. They are rules designed for the comfort of the people involved. Come up with a better example of something that is actually legally-mandated discrimination.
    When I lived in CA and later NY, using the other sex's restroom could get you arrested. It's not it's own statute, but in practice the common law is to arrest such offenders for anything from disrupting the peace to sexual assault, depending on the circumstances. But all that is besides the point, I could come up with other examples, such as Hooters only hiring women for wait staff.

    My point is just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it's automatically a bad thing by default; and so saying "that's discrimination" doesn't mean anything.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-27-13 at 01:13 PM.

  5. #205
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't give a crap if it's a right, it's discriminatory to give it to one group of people and not to another. That's the whole argument. If you can't get away allowing white people to marry, but not black people, you can't allow letting straight people marry but not gay people. The only basis the Prop 8 people have for claiming gays shouldn't marry is religion and religion cannot be used as an argument in a government court.
    Should cat-owners be allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

    No?

    But that's being discriminatory against one group (cat-owners) and not discriminatory against another (dog-owners)!

    But you say that cats don't belong in a dog show by definition?

    Well, neither do SS couples belong in a marriage, by definition.

    There is no discrimination when the foundational discrimination test -- definitive propriety -- renders a discrimination charge inapplicable.

    Marriage, since before the agrarian revolution, was orginially created and remains all about "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    If it isn't that, it isn't marriage.

    SS couples committed romantic relationships should be called homarriage, just like the distinction between "man" and "woman".

    These SS civil union domestic partnerships should be recognized by government and private enterprise just like other civil union domestic partnerships (which is the class that both marriage and homarriage fall under in the government's eyes).

    But, because they are obviously different, the two types of civil union domestic partnerships should have different names, obviously.

    Thus cat-owners enter their cats in a .. wait for it .. .. cat show, not a dog show, with all the same show trimmings.

    And, logically, rationally, SS couples engage in a homarriage, not a marriage, and all domestic partnership civil unions have the same trimmings recognized by government and private enterprise.

    It's the smart, really smart, and respectful win-win thing to do.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  6. #206
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,779

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    When I lived in CA and later NY, using the other sex's restroom could get you arrested. It's not it's own statute, but in practice the common law is to arrest such offenders for anything from disrupting the peace to sexual assault, depending on the circumstances. But all that is besides the point, I could come up with other examples, such as Hooters only hiring women for wait staff. My point is just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it's automatically a bad thing by default.
    You're still not producing anything. Hooters is a private company, not the government. There is still no law against using an opposite sex bathroom, if nobody is around and nobody complains, you're totally in the clear. You're arguing *OTHER* things, not using the bathroom. You still haven't found a place where discrimination, by the government, is acceptable.

    Try again.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You're still not producing anything. Hooters is a private company, not the government. There is still no law against using an opposite sex bathroom, if nobody is around and nobody complains, you're totally in the clear. You're arguing *OTHER* things, not using the bathroom. You still haven't found a place where discrimination, by the government, is acceptable.

    Try again.
    This is all a tangent anyway, I'm not going any deeper into it. Hooters is the perfect example because they went through a ton of litigation over years, a very famous series of legal events, and a lot of state and federal laws were brought into question as a result. I've produced enough examples that a reasonable person of average intelligence could receive my message: just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it's wrong.

    When you cry "that's discrimination" just understand that it doesn't have the meaning you intend, and so your point won't be received.

    Yeah, it's discrimination....that doesn't matter...at all.

  8. #208
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    .. But they are rightly called homarriages, not marriages.

    .
    How about some hypothetical marriage involving a man who advertises for a sexual slave and says he is into Biting, Breast/Nipple Torture, Cling Film,Electrotorture ,Sex In Public; Humiliation; Klismaphilia , Knife/Needle Play and Pain -- should that be called a pervertomarriage?
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  9. #209
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    How about some hypothetical marriage involving a man who advertises for a sexual slave and says he is into Biting, Breast/Nipple Torture, Cling Film,Electrotorture ,Sex In Public; Humiliation; Klismaphilia , Knife/Needle Play and Pain -- should that be called a pervertomarriage?
    By definition, since before the agrarian revolution, marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    If it isn't a man and a woman as husband and wife, it isn't marriage, and for so many understandable reasons.

    Since SS couples are not a man and a woman as husband and wife, they aren't, logically, rationally, with respect to the foundational appeal to definitive propriety, a marriage.

    Thus, in a win-win scenario, I suggest homarriage for SS couples, a civil union domestic partnership recognized by both government and private enterprise.

    What about that intelligent reasoning do you not comprehend?

    What about that intelligent reasoning do you oppose?
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  10. #210
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Scalia Wonders If Same-Sex Parents ‘Harmful’ To Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    What about that intelligent reasoning do you oppose?
    Besides the fact it is neither intelligent nor a product of reason, you mean?
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

Posting Permissions

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