Page 51 of 137 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 1363

Thread: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?[W:667]

  1. #501
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Those "practitioners of adult incest or polygamy" simply do not have the same legal arguments as couples of the same sex.
    What's the difference? I don't see what legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a state law that included same-sex couples who were not related by blood, or only distantly, but continued to exclude closely related same-sex couples. If laws that exclude same-sex couples are motivated only by naked hostility toward homosexuals, what reason is there to doubt that laws that exclude them on consanguinity grounds are motivated by the same hostility toward would-be practitioners of homosexual incest?

    I personally support making exceptions for certain incest cases (and I think first cousins will and should be the next laws we see fought to be taken down)
    Why only certain ones? What about the rights of partners more closely related than first cousins? To the extent that consanguinity requirements in marriage laws are meant to avoid the increased risk of genetic defects in offspring, these requirements serve no legitimate government interest when applied to partners of the same sex.

    Voluntary permanent sterilization is something many people have chosen. What legitimate government interest is served by a law that denies a brother and sister, or a father and daughter, or a mother and son, or any other heterosexual incestuous combination of partners the right to marry each other, if at least one of the partners had already undergone this procedure?

    and setting up some forms of marriage that offer at least some base protections for multiple spouses.
    Why just "base protections" for plural marriage partners? Given how long and how harshly polygamists have been discriminated against throughout the U.S.--and almost entirely out of moral disapproval rather than for any practical reasons--they would have a even stronger claim than homosexuals that marriage laws excluding them were motivated by nothing but the naked hostility of the majority.

    Logistically though, the arguments against same sex marriage are nowhere near the same as those against multiple spouses or even those against incestuous marriages.
    How so? What practical problems would adult incestuous marriages of the kinds I described present that same-sex marriages would not, that would give the state a legitimate interest in allowing the one, but not the other? What practical problem would a marriage between two female first cousins present, that would not be presented if everything else were the same, except that they were second cousins?

    The source of our rights that are protected is the Constitution and the very fact that the Constitution is supposed to protect individual rights first and foremost, including things that you may not personally like.
    That's great, except that there are all sorts of acts there is no constitutional right to engage in--prostitution, bigamy, public masturbation, the recreational use of heroin, public nudity, bestiality, adultery, fornicating at high noon on the bandstand in the town park, and a thousand other things.

    Whether you like it or not, the Constitution was not meant to divide power between the states and the federal government.
    That statement is flatly false. Of course that is exactly what the Constitution of the U.S. does--that very division of power is one of its basic features and what the term "federalism" refers to. These principles of federalism are implicit in the structure of the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, as the Court discussed in New York v. U.S. in 1992 and in Printz v. U.S. in 1997. If you'd like to debate the point, I will take the time to quote from those decisions or other authorities to prove it.

    It is meant, especially the Bill of Rights and many of the following Amendments, to protect individual rights from governmental tyranny, from both the federal and state governments.
    That's only partly true. As John Marshall made clear in his opinion in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the United States, and not to the states. It was only about 1900 that the Supreme Court first applied any part of the Bill of Rights to the states, and in a long series of decisions it has applied one part of it after another to them. It didn't get to the First Amendment's Establishment Clause until 1947; before that, any state that had wanted to could have had its own official religion.

    The most recent part was the Second Amendment, which the Court applied to the states in McDonald v. Chicago a few years ago. The rationale for doing all this has been the "doctrine of incorporation," which holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates various parts of the Bill of Rights and applies them to the states.

    Just because a bunch of dim bulbs screech in unison that they have a right to do this or that doesn't make it so. Just to cite one of many possible examples, it's common to hear someone prattle about how everyone has a right to an education--and yet the Supreme Court has made clear the Constitution does not guarantee any such right.

  2. #502
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    What's the difference? I don't see what legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a state law that included same-sex couples who were not related by blood, or only distantly, but continued to exclude closely related same-sex couples. If laws that exclude same-sex couples are motivated only by naked hostility toward homosexuals, what reason is there to doubt that laws that exclude them on consanguinity grounds are motivated by the same hostility toward would-be practitioners of homosexual incest?
    Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

    Why only certain ones? What about the rights of partners more closely related than first cousins? To the extent that consanguinity requirements in marriage laws are meant to avoid the increased risk of genetic defects in offspring, these requirements serve no legitimate government interest when applied to partners of the same sex.
    Then there's no legitimate government interest. Listen, there's no asterix on the the 14th amendment that says *but only for things we personally approve of. Same with the first amendment. I absolutely abhor the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals with their hateful nonsense. The difference between you and me is that I can recognize their right to do something while hating them for doing it. You? You're trying to talk people into abandoning the basic principles of the 14th amendment because those principles might lead to things they disapprove of.

    Voluntary permanent sterilization is something many people have chosen. What legitimate government interest is served by a law that denies a brother and sister, or a father and daughter, or a mother and son, or any other heterosexual incestuous combination of partners the right to marry each other, if at least one of the partners had already undergone this procedure?
    You tell me, chief.

    Why just "base protections" for plural marriage partners? Given how long and how harshly polygamists have been discriminated against throughout the U.S.--and almost entirely out of moral disapproval rather than for any practical reasons--they would have a even stronger claim than homosexuals that marriage laws excluding them were motivated by nothing but the naked hostility of the majority.
    What practical reason have you invented for excluding homosexuals from marriage laws? Are you going to launch into nonsense about procreation? Because if you do that, you'd better slippery slope your ass on to elderly couples.

    How so? What practical problems would adult incestuous marriages of the kinds I described present that same-sex marriages would not, that would give the state a legitimate interest in allowing the one, but not the other? What practical problem would a marriage between two female first cousins present, that would not be presented if everything else were the same, except that they were second cousins?
    You keep saying legitimate interest. Same-sex marriage bans require an important state interest. You supposedly know how intermediate scrutiny works, so why do you keep using that language?

    That's great, except that there are all sorts of acts there is no constitutional right to engage in--prostitution, bigamy, public masturbation, the recreational use of heroin, public nudity, bestiality, adultery, fornicating at high noon on the bandstand in the town park, and a thousand other things.
    Yeah, and? Gender is a protected classification under the 14th amendment.
    That's only partly true. As John Marshall made clear in his opinion in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the United States, and not to the states. It was only about 1900 that the Supreme Court first applied any part of the Bill of Rights to the states, and in a long series of decisions it has applied one part of it after another to them. It didn't get to the First Amendment's Establishment Clause until 1947; before that, any state that had wanted to could have had its own official religion.
    Yeah, and that was ****in stupid.


    Just because a bunch of dim bulbs screech in unison that they have a right to do this or that doesn't make it so. Just to cite one of many possible examples, it's common to hear someone prattle about how everyone has a right to an education--and yet the Supreme Court has made clear the Constitution does not guarantee any such right.
    Dim bulbs? Remember this kind of bull**** next time you whine about people being uncivil, hypocrite.
    Last edited by Deuce; 08-20-14 at 10:44 PM.
    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.

  3. #503
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental right.
    Yes--marriage between a man and a woman.

    According to the Supreme Court, any law restricting a fundamental right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose. If marriage is denied to some individuals but not others then it is an equal protection issue under the 14th amendment.
    Those recitals are accurate.

    As such the state must demonstrate a compelling state purpose for denying marriage to same-sex couples.
    That's nothing but your assertion, and good luck finding legal authority to back it up. Loving certainly is not authority for it. The Court knows very well the claim there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage doesn't even pass the laugh test, and that's exactly why Justice Kennedy has been careful to avoid it in all three of the "gay" decisions he's written. Anyone who reads the Court's standard for fundamental rights--Washington v. Glucksberg contains a good, current statement of it--can see why. It would hard to think of anything that would come any further from meeting the fundamental rights standard.

    It has proven to be much easier for the state to come up with compelling state interests to deny marriage in cases of incest, etc. than it has been to come up for one for same-sex couples.
    Can you cite me to any decisions where the court subject the exclusion of same-sex partners in a state marriage law to strict scrutiny? That's the standard of review that requires the government to show a law serves a "compelling" government interest, and the one you are claiming applies.

    Is that sufficient?
    No, I think it's very far from it.

  4. #504
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Texas voters overwhelmingly voted that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Of course that was in 2006. We'd be willing to put it to a vote again if it's allowed to stick.
    And what percentage of those voters were over 40? Furthermore, that was back in 2005.

    Recent pollings already show you've lost:

    The poll from Texas Tech University found that 48 percent of Texans are in favor of same-sex marriage, while 47 percent oppose it, according to a news release.
    That's from April 2014.

    Poll shows more Texans support same-sex marriage than oppose it - Lone Star Q
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #505
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Can you cite me to any decisions where the court subject the exclusion of same-sex partners in a state marriage law to strict scrutiny? That's the standard of review that requires the government to show a law serves a "compelling" government interest, and the one you are claiming applies.
    Bostic v. Schaefer, 4th circuit court of appeals.

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions...d/141167.P.pdf
    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.

  6. #506
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No actually heterosexual sex is not essential to the continuation of our species. We have IVF, sperm donation, egg donation, and surrogacy.
    Yeah, I wonder what percentage of children are born through normal means vs. artificial? I'm going to guess about 99.9999999%. I may be off by a digit. The remainder is not enough to populate a small village, let alone the human race. It's ridiculous to even think artificial means could replace nature's method.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  7. #507
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Wrong. There are currently millions of people of the same sex who are married. That proves you wrong.
    You can call it a marriage, but it's not. It's different, not the same as a marriage.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  8. #508
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You can call it a marriage, but it's not. It's different, not the same as a marriage.
    You realize "because I say so" isn't a good argument right?

    Anyways, if you need government to tell you how to value your marriage, you shouldn't be married.

    By the way, should I assume you're cowardly running away from my question regarding your stance that marriage is just for children?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #509
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Is this grand tantrum of yours because people called you a bigot? That's the "uncivil" behavior you're complaining about? You know what's uncivil?
    Well, I think you are coming pretty close to it. I hope you will change that by taking the personal tone out of anything else you may have to say to me.

    Voting for an unconstitutional law that suppresses freedom of the individual based solely on your personal dislike for that individual.
    I'll take your bare assertion that state marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples are unconstitutional for all it's worth.

    You don't like gay people so you want their freedom suppressed.
    I'll give that uncivil and personal baloney all the weight it deserves, too.

    You hide it behind all sorts of pseudo-legal babble, but that's really it.
    Every statement of the law I have made on these forums is accurate. Calling my legal arguments "pseudo-legal babble" is a convenient way to try to hide the fact you can't even begin to refute them. I'm sure that explains your uncivil tone, too--I've seen it so many hundreds of times on forums like these I've come to expect it. No better way to show everyone how weak your game is.

    And when you finally admit to that, perhaps some real debate can happen.
    Don't hold your breath.

    Here's a strange thing I've noticed about you:
    Once again, the personal tone. Why don't you confine yourself to my arguments?

    Not once have you complained about the insults that the anti-equality crowd throws at gay people. Where's your outrage then?
    Guess I haven't heard any of them. But then I don't hang around with homosexuals, so maybe that's why.

    The 14th amendment protects gender in addition to race. The level of constitutional scrutiny is lower, but it's there. Your response to that fact has boiled down to "Nuh uh!"
    That's right. In equal protection and due process claims of sex discrimination, the Court has usually applied some form of intermediate scrutiny. So what? That's got nothing to do with same-sex marriage laws.

  10. #510
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,566

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You realize "because I say so" isn't a good argument right?

    Anyways, if you need government to tell you how to value your marriage, you shouldn't be married.

    By the way, should I assume you're cowardly running away from my question regarding your stance that marriage is just for children?
    That applies to you as well, now doesn't it? Marriage is just for children? Not sure where I proclaimed that.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

Page 51 of 137 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... 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
  •