Prop 8 Oral Arguments and Predictions

Granule said:
The libs will probably get their way, eventually, as America seems to be losing its resolve to fight corruption.
Click to expand...

I hardly think gay marriage constitutes corruption. I also think the conservatives, especially those holding office, are doing no more to fight corruption than the libs are.

I have posted numerous times condemning politicians for lying. The responses have been almost universal in they all say "Its what politicians do.". As long as the majority accept lies as SOP for a politician, we have already stopped fighting corruption.
 
WinterBorn said:
I hardly think gay marriage constitutes corruption. I also think the conservatives, especially those holding office, are doing no more to fight corruption than the libs are.

I have posted numerous times condemning politicians for lying. The responses have been almost universal in they all say "Its what politicians do.". As long as the majority accept lies as SOP for a politician, we have already stopped fighting corruption.
Click to expand...
You already know my stance on the gay marriage issue, but I agree with you on what's going on with government. Most politicians seem to be quite comfortable with human suffering, just so long as it doesn't affect their world.
 
patriot66 said:
Do you even realize how stupid you sound, you make no sense.
Click to expand...

I realized how stupid you sound long ago. Your creed is dependent on indoctrination of children at a young age. That you were stupid enough to adopt it as an adult means you are mentally/emotinally special, like Tom Cruise.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
I realized how stupid you sound long ago. Your creed is dependent on indoctrination of children at a young age. That you were stupid enough to adopt it as an adult means you are mentally/emotinally special, like Tom Cruise.
Click to expand...

Not at all it means you will burn in Hell, your lack of belief in a sovereign God, makes Him no less real.
 
Dixie said:
That is funny! You asked me a question and then answered it yourself. It was discrimination based on race because they discriminated based on... wait for it.... RACE!

Now, considering there are no pure white or black races, it's damn near impossible for two people "of the same race" to marry. And when we look at the laws prohibiting interracial marriages, we see that they didn't try to prevent Asian-Latino marriages, or Arabic-french marriages, just black and white marriages, based on color of skin. Since color of skin has nothing to do with actual race, and since the purpose and intent was only to deny black and white people from marrying, the laws were struck down, and rightly so.

With gay marriage, no one is being prohibited from marrying, you just want to call something else marriage.
Click to expand...
you are so dumb you can't understand sarcasm? I was lampooning your comment by illustrating how utterly rediclous it was!
 
Dixie said:
That is funny! You asked me a question and then answered it yourself. It was discrimination based on race because they discriminated based on... wait for it.... RACE!

Now, considering there are no pure white or black races, it's damn near impossible for two people "of the same race" to marry. And when we look at the laws prohibiting interracial marriages, we see that they didn't try to prevent Asian-Latino marriages, or Arabic-french marriages, just black and white marriages, based on color of skin. Since color of skin has nothing to do with actual race, and since the purpose and intent was only to deny black and white people from marrying, the laws were struck down, and rightly so.

With gay marriage, no one is being prohibited from marrying, you just want to call something else marriage.
Click to expand...
Dixie are you claiming that if the law prohibited all races from intermarrying it would have been acceptable?
 
Reading Dixie and Patriot66 reminds me just how normal gays are.

Can we ban marriage to keep them from procreating?
 
Jarod said:
Dixie are you claiming that if the law prohibited all races from intermarrying it would have been acceptable?
Click to expand...

No, it would be impossible to adhere to and still have marriage. Aside from maybe the Jewish people, there aren't any "pure" races anymore. I don't even know if most Jewish people are pure. The idea of "race" is antiquated anyway, it comes from an era where men determined statuses based on false beliefs and perceptions of people who weren't the same. We know better than that now, we realize that for the most part, there really aren't any pure races, and we're all part of the HUMAN race.

The constant comparing of interracial marriage to what you are wanting to do, is a straw man and red herring, both at the same time... it's a Straw Herring! It's designed and intended to play into the meme that this is an "equality" issue, when it's simply NOT! Don't give a damn how many pink equal signs on red backgrounds are out there on Facebook, it's still not about "equality."

Gay people have the same equal right to MARRY someone, as everyone else has. But to MARRY is to join in union with the opposite sex. A same-sex union is NOT MARRIAGE! You want to redefine "marriage" to include this, and that is why it's just not an issue of "equality."
 
It is odd that ditzy uses blatant lies about a subject that is easily checked. The ruling in Loving had nothing to do with problems of application of the law (or those like it) due to a lack of racial purity within the population. The law was struck down because it violated the 14th amendment rights of the Lovings and because there was no valid state interest in the law. It did not matter that it was applied equally or not.

In Lawrence v Texas, the court found laws that made acts illegal based on same sex relationships unconstitutional infringing on a fundamental right. The court overturned a law seeking to deny homosexuals 14th amendment protections in Romer v Evans.

Laws that deny two members of the same sex from marrying are unconstitutional for two different reasons. They deny men a right granted to women and women a right granted to men. The fact that they do so equally does not make the law any more valid. They also attempt to deny homosexuals 14th amendment rights based on treating them as a seperate class. Again, it does not matter that the law also bars heterosexuals from a same sex marriage or allows homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex.

These arguments by opponents of marriage equality actually weaken their argument as they prove the laws are not narrowly tailored, because they cannot address the essential aspects of the supposed interest. That is, opponents of marriage equality claim the state has a valid interst in protecting marriage as a stable form of procreation. But a homosexual can marry a member of the opposite sex (as opponents argue) which make their marriage less likely to reproduce and create instability within the marriage.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
It is odd that ditzy uses blatant lies about a subject that is easily checked. The ruling in Loving had nothing to do with problems of application of the law (or those like it) due to a lack of racial purity within the population. The law was struck down because it violated the 14th amendment rights of the Lovings and because there was no valid state interest in the law. It did not matter that it was applied equally or not.

In Lawrence v Texas, the court found laws that made acts illegal based on same sex relationships unconstitutional infringing on a fundamental right. The court overturned a law seeking to deny homosexuals 14th amendment protections in Romer v Evans.

Laws that deny two members of the same sex from marrying are unconstitutional for two different reasons. They deny men a right granted to women and women a right granted to men. The fact that they do so equally does not make the law any more valid. They also attempt to deny homosexuals 14th amendment rights based on treating them as a seperate class. Again, it does not matter that the law also bars heterosexuals from a same sex marriage or allows homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex.

These arguments by opponents of marriage equality actually weaken their argument as they prove the laws are not narrowly tailored, because they cannot address the essential aspects of the supposed interest. That is, opponents of marriage equality claim the state has a valid interst in protecting marriage as a stable form of procreation. But a homosexual can marry a member of the opposite sex (as opponents argue) which make their marriage less likely to reproduce and create instability within the marriage.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Click to expand...

I don't know about Lawrence and Loving, and I didn't argue about what courts have found. I didn't argue that interracial marriage was struck down because it couldn't meet the test of racial purity, I said that was what made it fundamentally different from the gay marriage issue. Comparing "gay marriage" and "interracial marriage" are two entirely different things, and to fool yourself or others into believing differently, is just plain dishonest.

There is no marriage inequality, there may be an inequality between gay couples living in a monogamous relationship and a married couple, but marriage is not prohibited on the basis of sexuality, you want to define something as "marriage" which isn't "marriage," and then before we notice, quickly jump to the presence of an inequality. There is no inequality in terms of "marriage."

Now, is it the government's place to tell us how we personally define "marriage?" Well, if it is, then it can tell us it's either between a man and woman or it can be between whateverthefuck! But maybe it's NOT government's place? Maybe that should be left to the churches and people to decide for themselves, and the government should butt the hell out of it altogether? I guess we'll find out soon enough, which way we are to go, but I think if the SCOTUS 'upholds' gay marriage and makes it law of the land, we can expect to see the debate over polygamy begin next year.
 
So you are an expert on the definition of marriage but unclear on what you clearly indicated here.

Dixie said:
Now, considering there are no pure white or black races, it's damn near impossible for two people "of the same race" to marry. And when we look at the laws prohibiting interracial marriages, we see that they didn't try to prevent Asian-Latino marriages, or Arabic-french marriages, just black and white marriages, based on color of skin. Since color of skin has nothing to do with actual race, and since the purpose and intent was only to deny black and white people from marrying, the laws were struck down, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning has nothing to do with what was used in Loving or the law. You don't bother considering the opinions of others not even those who have shaped the laws. You just make it all up as you go. That's why your opinions are without any value and will never win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top