View Poll Results: On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 (least important)

    21 32.31%
  • 2

    3 4.62%
  • 3

    3 4.62%
  • 4

    2 3.08%
  • 5

    3 4.62%
  • 6

    3 4.62%
  • 7

    7 10.77%
  • 8

    10 15.38%
  • 9

    3 4.62%
  • 10 (most important)

    10 15.38%
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 161

Thread: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Words have meaning, that do not "change over time", especially to ADD/DELETE new "concepts" or "classes".
    Words do have meaning, however they do change in time. However, we're not just talking about words, we're talking about constitutional law. Perhaps rather than worrying about what's clear or readable you should get a baseline understanding of how Con Law works. There's a thing called precedence that, unless rejected by a later court, essentially add's new "concepts" or "classes" to law based on interpritation of the law by Justices.

    In terms of the 14th amendment, case law suggest that yes...race is LIKE gender. Specifically, that Gender is a recognized classification under the Equal Protection Clause. One that is of slightly lower importance than race, but more importance than many other classifications. Perhaps instead of bitching that peoples words are unreadable you should instead do some research to understand what those "big words" are talking about since it's integral to the conversatoin. Case Law has established precedence that Gender is viewed under medium teir scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This means that the government must show that the discrimination against gender serves an important state interest and that said discrimination is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

    It's funny that you wish to talk about "legal precedent" while completely and utterly ignoring actual legal precedent. You say words have meaning. Thanks for that wonderful insight. Here's some insight for you. YOUR OPINION of what the law should be and how it should be applied means jack ****. Case law has established that the courts can, and have, used Gender as a class under the EPC despite your claims that those amendments prove legal precedent says it does'nt. See Ramos v. Town of Vernon, US v. Virginia (The VMI case), or even more recently and branching it out even further Glenn v. Brumby. From Ramos's decision you can even see the court specifically laying out that gender can fall under Intermediate Scrutiny under the EPC:

    “Intermediate scrutiny typically is used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications…such as gender…or legitimacy…. On occasion intermediate scrutiny has been applied to review a law that affects ‘an important though not constitutional right.’” Soure
    You keep going back to the military to attempt to prove that gender doesn't fit. Again, that fails. It's not that the EPC doesn't apply to Gender, it's that the courts had found that denying women the ability to enter into combat roles has thus far been found to adhere to the intermediate scrutiny needed to discriminate against them. You can refer back to a 1981 court case where the SCOTUS upheld a national draft law that excluded women. In terms of the various phsyical requirements, I'm not aware off the top of my head of any cases that challenged those standards and one must remember that the Supreme Court can not simply deem things unconstitutional...they must have a case brought before them to be able to take any action.

    You're correct in your assumption that Race is not EQUAL to Gender. It's not. Race is a viewed under strict scrutiny while gender is done under intermediate scrutiny. However, they are "Like" each other in that they both can and have been used as classifications under the Equal Protectoin Clause. Additionally, as was my point from the very beginning, Gender being an intermediate scrutiny classification places it at a higher constitutional burden at this point via case law then sexual orientation.

    As a note, Sexual Orientation does have case law regarding it's place in the courts in terms of the Equal Protectoin Clause. It is a lowest teir, or "Rational Scrutiny", level classification at this point but is essentially the "top" end of that bottom teir having something called a "second order rational basis test" to determine the constitutionality of discrimination against such classification.

    Things can "To you" appear to be whatever you wish it to be. But the reality of the situation is that when it comes to constitutional law, precedence in terms of previous rulings by the court is far more important than what random opinion ANY of us...me and you included..have that run counter to what that legal precedence demonstrates.

    Race is not "like" gender (nor is GLBT orientation "like" race or gender) thus they were explictly and separately addressed, via constitutional amendment. To me that establishes a "legal precedent", that we DO amend the constitution for "conceptually different" things, not simply accept that all things "like" or "sort of similar to" are the SAME or EQUAL concept.

    Treating a black man not like a white man is unconstitutional, but treating a black man not like a white woman is NOT unconstitutional IFF treating a black man not like black woman is also done (e.g. military physical fitness standards) thus marriage defined as one man/one woman is perfectly legal. Just as race and gender are NOT mutually exclusive, neither is GLBT status a substitue for either gender or race, it is in its "own class" of concepts. You can be a gay black man, or a white bisexual woman, or... (you get my drift here).[/QUOTE]

  2. #132
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    So tell me, exactly what legitimate state interest is being reasonably furthered by banning same sex couples from getting legally married?
    Are you viewing it from the stand point of gender discrimination or sexual preference discrimination?

    With one it is just important to point out a "legitimate" state interest and one only must show that the discrimination is "rationally" related to it...at least at this point given current case laws placement of the classification on the EPC scale.

    With the other one must show that its an "important", not just legitimate, state interest and that the discrimination is "substantially" related to it...a far higher standard, and one that doesn't apply to homosexuals at this point.

    There's a LOT of wiggle room with regards to the lower teir and proving the state constitutional in its discrimination.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-31-14 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    154

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    ........I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction.......
    Not allowing something is not the same as criminalizing it. It should not be recognized: Period. But if someone has some goofy ceremony I cetrtainly would not fine them either.

    I agree with you about homosexual sex being a sin. But let us take religion out of it for a moment: Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

    For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

    Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

    So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and politcial correctness that did not exist before.

    So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

    SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident. Well, traditional marriage had 240 years of legal precedent, and thousands of years more in Civilization as a whole. So if it is extreme to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years then it is off-the-chart extremism to allow gay "marriage"

  4. #134
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Are you viewing it from the stand point of gender discrimination or sexual preference discrimination?

    With one it is just important to point out a "legitimate" state interest and one only must show that the discrimination is "rationally" related to it...at least at this point given current case laws placement of the classification on the EPC scale.
    Which explains why all of this will have to be resolved by SCOTUS. FWIW, I think it is a civil rights issue which divides consenting adults into two groups; those granted special rights and privileges and those who are not.

  5. #135
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by proud2Bcatholic View Post
    Not allowing something is not the same as criminalizing it. It should not be recognized: Period. But if someone has some goofy ceremony I cetrtainly would not fine them either.

    I agree with you about homosexual sex being a sin. But let us take religion out of it for a moment: Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

    For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

    Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

    So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and politcial correctness that did not exist before.

    So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

    SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident. Well, traditional marriage had 240 years of legal precedent, and thousands of years more in Civilization as a whole. So if it is extreme to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years then it is off-the-chart extremism to allow gay "marriage"
    The simple reason that homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychological disorder is because it doesn't meet the criteria for being categorized as such, and in reality most psychologists these days think it was a travesty that it was ever included in the first place, because it doesn't fit the clinical definition of a disorder. In fact, the inclusion of homosexuality as a disorder was controversial right from the beginning with the first DSM was published in 1952, rather than due to gay activism in the 1970s. Please, educate yourself on the subject.

    For something to be classified as a mental of psychological disorder, it has to meet certain criteria. Does the condition, in and of itself, cause distress? Does it cause impairment/disability or otherwise disallow the individual from functioning on a daily basis? Homosexuality doesn't meet these criteria. All evidence points to the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM because the scientific evidence warranted it, not because of political pressure.

    On the other hand, you have absolutely no argument or evidence for why the APA is "wrong now" and "right then." Merely your own opinion, not supported by any fact or scientific evidence. In addition, you possess absolutely no evidence for your assertion that homosexuality was removed from the DSM due to political pressure from gay activism. IOW, your argument consists of nothing more than "I think, therefore I am right."

    Not only that, but your contention that "Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently" is demonstrably false. The first DSM was published in 1952, and homosexuality removed as a disorder in 1973. Homosexuality remained officially a disorder in the eyes of the APA for 21 years. It has been off the manual for thirty-nine.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 06-14-12 at 10:23 AM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  6. #136
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by proud2Bcatholic View Post
    So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?
    But I don't think anybody has suggested that dogmatic homophobia be treated in such a manner. Sure, it is so lacking in anything approaching rational thought that it is certainly a mental disorder, but most of the sane just wish it would go away rather than enshrining it in any way.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  7. #137
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    Which explains why all of this will have to be resolved by SCOTUS. FWIW, I think it is a civil rights issue which divides consenting adults into two groups; those granted special rights and privileges and those who are not.
    Marriage inherently does that.

    Those who chooes to marry get special rights and privledges. Those who do not, do not.

    Our entire government system in terms of "special rights and privledges" is based off the notion of segmenting off people who make certian choices. The question is whether or not those divisions are constitutional. But discrimination is not inherently unconstitutional for the government to do

  8. #138
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by proud2Bcatholic View Post
    SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident.
    And how many times have we heard the Right say that precident isn't a legitimate reason to allow something unconstitutional and morally wrong to stand.

  9. #139
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Marriage inherently does that.

    Those who chooes to marry get special rights and privledges. Those who do not, do not.

    Our entire government system in terms of "special rights and privledges" is based off the notion of segmenting off people who make certian choices. The question is whether or not those divisions are constitutional. But discrimination is not inherently unconstitutional for the government to do
    I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but perhaps if you cited some specific examples it would be easier to agree with it.

  10. #140
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but perhaps if you cited some specific examples it would be easier to agree with it.
    Those who choose to and can pass the tests of the DMV are segmented into the populatoin that have the privledge to drive legaly on road ways...others are segmented into the population who can not. This discriminates against those who have issues passing the test, for whatever reason that may be.

    Those over 18 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy pornography and cigerettes and not have curfews...others who are under 18 are segmented into the population that can not do those things. This discriminates against those who are under 18.

    As the above, those over 21 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy alcohol...others who are under 21 are segmented into a different set of the population without those privledges.

    The rules regarding combat roles in the military segments adults into two segments based on race...those who can and can't serve in combat roles.

    The laws regarding the precidency segments adults into two segments based on nationality.

    I can keep going. The Law discriminates against people all the time. It just basically comes down to whether or not the discrimination reaches the required levels of necessity on the part of the government, as it relates to the amount of protection the discriminated group is awarded uner the law, to be deemed constitutional or not.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •