• 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!

Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Johnny DooWop said:
Another way to put it: Discrimination is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Which then gets us back to the point you avoided:

-Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals can marry someone of the same gender.
-Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry somene of the opposite gender.
-Everyone has the same privilege; everyone has the same limitation.
Where's the discrimination?

Prohibiting homosexuals from marrying each other is discrimination because heterosexuals get to marry who they are attracted to, while homosexuals do not get to marry who they are attracted to.
Click to expand...
This has been addressed, ad nauseum - please do look over the last few pages.
Becuase attraction/love are not necessary components of marriage, this is a false standard.
 
Your argument that discrimination is only unconstitutional for "necessary components" and not desires is false and your attempt at deductive reasoning is weak. Under the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,". One of the definitions for liberty in the merriam-webster dictionary is "the power of choice." Therefore, by not being able to chose who we want to marry, being that by law we are limited to choosing only partners of the opposite sex, we are all being violated according to the 14th amendment.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Your argument that discrimination is only unconstitutional for "necessary components" and not desires is false...
Click to expand...
No. Its not.
You're trying to argue that a restriction on something that has no necessary relationship to marriage is, necessarily, discriminatory when the state issues the prvilige of marriage. The diconnect is obvious -- a condition not necessarily connected to the issue cannot be made into a necessary standard when evaluating the discriminatory nature of the condition.

Not being able to exercise a privilige in exactly the way you might want to in no way, on its own, create an argument that you are bing discriminated against - especially when that 'want to' has no necessary relationship to the privilige in question.

Under the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,".
Click to expand...
If you had bothered to read any of the last several pages, you;d see this has already been addressed:
No one under discussion is deprived of life, liberty or property, and as such, there is no due process issue.

So... no due process issue, no EP issue - no issue, period.
 
Last edited:
You're still wrong Goobieman. I point to the courts not arguing with you as evidence. ;)
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Another way to put it: Discrimination is unconstitutional. Prohibiting homosexuals from marrying each other is discrimination because heterosexuals get to marry who they are attracted to, while homosexuals do not get to marry who they are attracted to. So you are mistaken when you say the law effects everyone the same way. It doesn't, therefore it is discrimination.
Click to expand...

Really. So any descrimination of anyone is unconstiutional? I'd love to see that. How about you quote the Constitution? Oh and please quote the passage that mentions homosexuality too.
 
Goobieman said:
Not being able to exercise a privilige in exactly the way you might want to in no way, on its own, create an argument that you are bing discriminated against - especially when that 'want to' has no necessary relationship to the privilige in question.
Click to expand...

Not being able to exercise a privilege in exactly the way you might want to, based on something that you cannot control (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) and that does not harm anyone else, while others can exercise it in the way they want to, is precisely the comprehensive definition of discrimination. And that goes for whether the act is a necessary component of a privilege or simply a desired component.

"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property." John Locke
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Not being able to exercise a privilege in exactly the way you might want to, based on something that you cannot control (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) and that does not harm anyone else, while others can exercise it in the way they want to, is precisely the comprehensive definition of discrimination. And that goes for whether the act is a necessary component of a privilege or simply a desired component.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. If the basis for your desire to exercise the privilige has no necessary relationship to the privilige, then you cannot soundly argue that denial on that basis is discriminatory.
 
Goobieman said:
Incorrect. If the basis for your desire to exercise the privilige has no necessary relationship to the privilige, then you cannot soundly argue that denial on that basis is discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Until you provide some legal statue, case, or precedent demonstrating this statement, it is just a matter of your opinion.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Until you provide some legal statue, case, or precedent demonstrating this statement, it is just a matter of your opinion.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- it is a sound conclusion. Nothing - neither legal statue nor case nor precedent demonstrating this statement one way or the other - can change that.
 
Goobieman said:
On the contrary -- it is a sound conclusion. Nothing - neither legal statue nor case nor precedent demonstrating this statement one way or the other - can change that.
Click to expand...

My position, which is "Not being able to exercise a privilege in exactly the way you might want to, based on something that you cannot control (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) and that does not harm anyone else, while others can exercise it in the way they want to, is precisely the comprehensive definition of discrimination. And that goes for whether the act is a necessary component of a privilege or simply a desired component," is just as sound as to many Americans as you believe your position is. Therefore, it is only a matter of opinion until there is some authority to base it on...Oh wait...there is. Loving vs Virginia provides common law precedence that my position is the correct interpretation of United States laws regarding the privilege of marriage and the right to have the choice to pick who your spouse is, even if that "choice" isn't a necessary part of the privilege of marriage.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
My position, which is "Not being able to exercise a privilege in exactly the way you might want to, based on something that you cannot control (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) and that does not harm anyone else, while others can exercise it in the way they want to, is precisely the comprehensive definition of discrimination.
Click to expand...
Um.... no.
Discrimination doesn't have anything to with "Not being able to exercise a privilege in exactly the way you might want to", regardless of anything else; it has everything to do with different legal standards for different people. This isn't the case here, as everyone is under the same legal standard.

And that goes for whether the act is a necessary component of a privilege or simply a desired component,"
Click to expand...
On the contrary - whatever standard you might care to choose must be necessaruly related to the privilige, else it is meaningless. What you're arguing is no more sound that judging the efficacy of a car tire based on the color of the carpet in the trunk.

...is just as sound as to many Americans as you believe your position is
Click to expand...
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Popularity

Therefore, it is only a matter of opinion until there is some authority to base it on
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- my position is sound. Opinion, from anyone, doesnt change that.
There's no EP issue, there''s no Due Process issue -- and thus, no issue.
 
Goobieman said:
This isn't the case here, as everyone is under the same legal standard.
Click to expand...

No. Homosexuals can't marry the sex whom they prefer to marry. According to Loving vs Virginia, restricting someone's choice in a partner is unconstitutional.

Goobieman said:
What you're arguing is no more sound that judging the efficacy of a car tire based on the color of the carpet in the trunk.
Click to expand...

I have cited legal authority that backs my position. You have cited no legal authority. All you are doing is stating your own personal interpretation of the law and how it relates to privileges. Even though you have an interesting point (that is mostly based on word play and semantics), you are losing this debate because you have cited no legal authority to back your position, whereas I have cited a landmark supreme court case that does in fact declare prohibiting people from choosing who they want to marry is unconstitutional.

Its called liberty, and that's the way we like it here. Welcome to America.
 
Goobieman said:
Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

When you can show how my argument is unsound. let me know.
Click to expand...

Already have. It's disingenuous to suggest a homosexual can marry a heterosexual. It would be like allowing you to amrry only someone of the same sex and saying it was fair. You can fain ignorance if you like, but I'm not buying it.
 
I propose that people be allowed to own any gun they want....as long as it's the same one I want...
 
Johnny DooWop said:
No
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly the same standard. men, woment, gay, straight - exactly the same standard.
That you dont get to do exactly what you want in no way equates to discrimination.

According to Loving vs Virginia, restricting someone's choice in a partner is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
This has been addressed. Fallacy:appeal to authority.

I have cited legal authority that backs my position. You have cited no legal authority.
Click to expand...
See above. This doesnt show your position to be sound, much less show mine to be unsound.
My argument stands w/o such sillliness; if your argument were sound, it would as well. That you must continue to appeal to authority indicates you understand that my argument is sound, and yours is not.

Its called liberty, and that's the way we like it here. Welcome to America.
Click to expand...
Until you negate the soundness of my argument and prove the soundness of yours, without resorting to the previously mentioned fallacies and false standards, your interpretation of what 'liberty' really means is flawed.
 
Redress said:
I propose that people be allowed to own any gun they want....as long as it's the same one I want...
Click to expand...
Ah... the master of the red herring rears her ugly head.
Note that "ugly head" is a figure of speech, not a direct characterization of your appearance.
 
Boo Radley said:
Already have.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false - you have yet to soundly describe any equal protection or due process issue with anything I have said.
Dont feel bad - the impossible is, by defintion, impossible.
 
Goobieman said:
Until you negate the soundness of my argument and prove the soundness of yours, without resorting to the previously mentioned fallacies and false standards, your interpretation of what 'liberty' really means is flawed.
Click to expand...

I already have, you just refuse to recognize it. You've already lost this debate and you're the only one who refused to recognize it. And these "fallacies" you talk about, i.e. common law legal authority, is the way our legal system works. Law is largely a matter of opinion, not science. It is a fact that 2+2=4, but what protections our constitution provides for its citizens is a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is a matter of opinion. The way we settle differences in legal "opinions" in this country is through common law. If you don't understand that yet, I suggest you go take a law class.
 
Goobieman said:
Absolutely false - you have yet to soundly describe any equal protection or due process issue with anything I have said.
Dont feel bad - the impossible is, by defintion, impossible.
Click to expand...

Again, you might try reading the court decisions. It would be a start. Second, because you refuse to or pretend not to understand why your reasoning is unsound doesn't mean people haven't demonstrated it. it is silly to suggest a homosexual can marry a heterosexual. Just as silly as suggest a heterosexual marry someone of the same sex.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I already have, you just refuse to recognize it.
Click to expand...
This is nothing but an "I know you are, but what am I". Dont waste my time.
You obviously cannot deliver the necessary goods - get over it and move on.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you might try reading the court decisions
Click to expand...
We've been over this - this is an appeal to authority.
If your argument is sound, you do not need to resort to such silliness.

You have yet to show an equal protection issue and you have yet to show a due process issue -- and so, you have yet to show anything.
 
Goobieman said:
We've been over this - this is an appeal to authority.
If your argument is sound, you do not need to resort to such silliness.

You have yet to show an equal protection issue and you have yet to show a due process issue -- and so, you have yet to show anything.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is you looking at and understanding the ruling. This isssue is about law, and if you don't understand the legal argument, you can reach wrong conclusions, as you have. The ruling is a place to start.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't.
Click to expand...
You are arguing that you are right not because your argument is sound but because a court agrees with you. That's an appeal to authority, and is a logocal fallacy for a very clear and obvious reason. If your argument were sound on its own, like mine, then you'd not need to resort to such silliness.

When you base your arguments on false standards and logical fallcies, as you have, you are destined to fail. As you have.

You have yet to show an equal protection issue and you have yet to show a due process issue -- and so, you have yet to show anything.
 
Goobieman said:
You are arguing that you are right not because your argument is sound but because a court agrees with you. That's an appeal to authority, and is a logocal fallacy for a very clear and obvious reason. If your argument were sound on its own, like mine, then you'd not need to resort to such silliness.

When you base your arguments on false standards and logical fallcies, as you have, you are destined to fail. As you have.

You have yet to show an equal protection issue and you have yet to show a due process issue -- and so, you have yet to show anything.
Click to expand...

Pay close attention, I'm arguing the court laid out the legal grounds for their decision, and it flys in the face of your arguemtn. So, you have to start with the legal grounds, not your own personal misdefintion and misunderstanding of the law, and make your argument from there. A place to start is from the ruling and the arguments used.

When i need my car fixed, I use a machanic. When I need my water pipes fixed, I call a plummer. And when I need to look at the alw, I seek an expert on law. the first place to start here is with the law and how courts have ruled. When enough rule a certain way, it becomes clearly the law of the land. And you have to concede you may not understand the law. But, any discussion of this needs to start with the ruling. You just spouting silliness that it isn't discrimination because you don;t see it isn't logical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom