Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Should the Federal government allow gay marriage?

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 212
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Eh... I'd say biology and the evolution of marriage as an institution by which people raised and supported offspring together make a pretty good case that marriage exists in its most natural form only between one man and one woman. That's not irrational, and it's not arbitrary; it's millennia of history, biology, and psychology working together to arrive at a conclusion that the vast majority of human civilizations throughout history have agreed with, from time immemorial. You may disagree with the conclusions that the people making that case have reached, and that's your right. However, calling it irrational is not really accurate. It's perfectly rational; you just don't agree with it.
    It's irrational since it's an appeal to tradition which is a logical fallacy.

    The FACT is we have all kinds of people raising children. We have traditional parents, step-parents, single parents, gay parents (married or not). If it's our goal to discriminate against every type of family that is not a man and woman raising their own biological children, then we need to disadvantage step-parents, single parents, etc. But if our goal is to do what is best for everyone equally, then we need to have the laws treat all families the same under the law. If you want to make an exception, there has to be a rational reason. And blind appeal to tradition is not one of those rational reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    This was a statement made to address the accusation by Gemini of a "slippery slope" fallacy, which I believe does not exist in this case. If, as you say, we should treat all proposed unions between consenting adults equally, then there is no logical reason to restrict it to only two people, if we are making a decision to allow the government any role in defining marriage between anyone at all. Doing so violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, because it creates a certain group of consenting adults that wish to marry but may not because of legal reasons.
    I don't know if there is a valid reason to ban polygamy or not. Nor am I making an argument about that either way. But my point is if there is no rational reason to ban polygamy, then it doesn't make much sense to argue that we should not allow gay marriage over the concern that it will lead to legalizing polygamy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Why? They're *not* the same. There are, in fact, some pretty important differences between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one, not least of which is procreative ability.... one of the reasons for which the institution of marriage exists in the first place. And before you start talking about infertility, that's been traditionally upheld in multiple legal and religious systems as a valid grounds for divorce if one party wants children but the other is unable to procreate for any reason.
    But infertility is NOT a valid ground for not allowing a couple to marry. Since procreation is in no way a prerequisite for the right to marry, it is not an important issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Then we're in agreement... except that I don't believe that the government should have any role at all except in a tort capacity, for the enforcement of legally binding contracts.
    I'm not making any arguments about how little or much the government should be involved in marriage. I'm just saying that it needs to treat straight and gay unions the same. And since the SCOTUS is not contemplating getting the government out of marriage but instead contemplating giving gay unions legal equality to gay unions, it must rule against Prop. 8.

  2. #22
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    But it's not applied equally. That's why I said that there were two arguments. Yes, you could say that everyone is prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex, but then you are creating a different inequality. You are allowing a woman to do something that a man cannot.
    Nope, a woman cannot marry someone of the same sex either. No one, regardless of race or sex or sexual orientation or age or whatever protected class you wish, is allowed to marry someone of their own sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    Your argument above would be the equivalent of arguing that it's equal application when the law prohibits anyone from marrying someone of a different race. Everyone is required to marry only their own race. That's equal application, right?
    Yes, banning interracial marriages would not be a violation of the 14th Amendment. It would be wrong because it is arbitrary (marriage has no historical connection to race like it does to sex). It would be wrong because there is no comparison between gender differences and racial differences. But it wouldn't be wrong because it was un-equal application of law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    On this point, I agree with you. Only because the equal application in your example doesn't created a different inequality like the example I showed above.
    So you can see that we do use this principle in our legal system then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    You believe that we should be able to vote (either directly or through Senate/Congress) on fundamental rights?
    No of course not. But marriage is not a fundamental right, despite the SCOTUS finding to the contrary. You have no right to be recognized as joined by the state any more than you have the right to demand the state acknowledge you as a deity or a corporation (or any classification you wish to attach to yourself). Marriage is a social institution that exists independently of the state that the state has chosen to recognize for various reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    It's not in the Constitution. The SCOTUS has the power to declare a fundamental right.
    Wait what? Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. Thanks Mordecai thanked for this post
  4. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Nope, a woman cannot marry someone of the same sex either. No one, regardless of race or sex or sexual orientation or age or whatever protected class you wish, is allowed to marry someone of their own sex.
    You really don't see how this creates ANOTHER inequality by allowing a woman to marry a man, but a man can't marry a man? You are legally allowing a woman to do something that a man cannot do. That is NOT equal application.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, banning interracial marriages would not be a violation of the 14th Amendment. It would be wrong because it is arbitrary (marriage has no historical connection to race like it does to sex). It would be wrong because there is no comparison between gender differences and racial differences. But it wouldn't be wrong because it was un-equal application of law.
    The SCOTUS would disagree with you:

    This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0001_ZO.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you can see that we do use this principle in our legal system then?
    Of course I do. My entire argument is based on equal application of the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No of course not. But marriage is not a fundamental right, despite the SCOTUS finding to the contrary. You have no right to be recognized as joined by the state any more than you have the right to demand the state acknowledge you as a deity or a corporation (or any classification you wish to attach to yourself). Marriage is a social institution that exists independently of the state that the state has chosen to recognize for various reasons.
    If it's independent of the state, then whey the need for a state issued marriage license? It is a legal binding contract. Marriage a right with laws associated with the union. And those laws should be applied equally.

    And the state of Florida should recognize my marriage per Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Wait what? Challenge to support a claim.
    I should not have used the word declare. I should have used the word extend.

    The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:

    The right to interstate travel
    The right to intrastate travel
    The right to privacy[10] (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
    a. The right to marriage[11][12]
    b. The right to procreation [13]
    c. The right for a woman to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability [14][15]
    d. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices) [16]
    e. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

  5. #24
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    My husband and I have two daughters. We have both procreated. Not together (through a surrogate), but we have procreated and we are raising a family.

    What are some other things you think are different? Other than our gender of course.
    That's entirely beside the point, really. The issue is that for some reason, you seem to think that the Supreme Court can invent rights for the Federal government to protect and intervene in.

    The problem is that there is nowhere in the Constitution that spells out the government's role in defining, defending, or otherwise interacting with marriage in any form, whatsoever. Therefore, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, the issue is one that should be reserved to the States or to the people at large. The Federal government should not have any position on marriage at all... not the DOMA, not a ruling on Proposition 8, nothing.

    I'm not going to get side-tracked onto a discussion about the parity or lack thereof between heterosexual and homosexual couples. It's not germane to the issue.

    ---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's irrational since it's an appeal to tradition which is a logical fallacy. The FACT is we have all kinds of people raising children. We have traditional parents, step-parents, single parents, gay parents (married or not). If it's our goal to discriminate against every type of family that is not a man and woman raising their own biological children, then we need to disadvantage step-parents, single parents, etc. But if our goal is to do what is best for everyone equally, then we need to have the laws treat all families the same under the law. If you want to make an exception, there has to be a rational reason. And blind appeal to tradition is not one of those rational reasons.
    It's not a fallacious appeal to tradition because there are other logical and reasonable points to back up the claim. If the only supporting point was, "that's the way we've always done it," then we could talk about a fallacy. The problem is that you simply disagree with the characterization of the position as potentially logical and valid because you disagree with the conclusion. You have different considerations you're making in your decision of who and what types of marriage should be recognized. That's fine... but don't just dismiss the other side as a fallacy when it's not.

    To speak to a point that Gemini made earlier and to address just one of the many perfectly logical reasons that it might be better for heterosexual couples to have a unique status in society, let's deal with some of the known risk factors of homosexuality.
    The FACT is that there are are higher rates of suicide, STD infections including HIV and Hepatitis, and psychological disorders in homosexual people. I'm not making a disparaging statement... it's just medical facts, with numbers to back them up. That means that among homosexuals, even those who "procreate," there is a much greater chance that the children being raised by those parents will suffer the negative effects of those and many other diseases that tend to be more common in homosexuals. Is it grounds for the Federal government to step in and forbid it? I don't think so... but that doesn't mean that people who feel that way are being unreasonable or illogical. It just means that you disagree with them as to what constitutes sufficient cause for the Federal government to become involved in what could very reasonably be construed as a public health issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I don't know if there is a valid reason to ban polygamy or not. Nor am I making an argument about that either way. But my point is if there is no rational reason to ban polygamy, then it doesn't make much sense to argue that we should not allow gay marriage over the concern that it will lead to legalizing polygamy.
    I don't think that's one of the arguments that's been made in this thread. I certainly haven't made it and don't plan to. The issue is not that it "might" happen... the issue is that if the government decides to take a role in dictating who is and isn't allowed to marry and who has to recognize those marriages, it's logically inconsistent *not* to expand the definition to include any combination of consenting adults.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But infertility is NOT a valid ground for not allowing a couple to marry. Since procreation is in no way a prerequisite for the right to marry, it is not an important issue.
    But since the law does deal with it in many instances as sufficient cause ipso facto for divorce, even in legal codes that don't allow divorce except for certain problems (none of this "irreconcilable differences" thing). Therefore, when we're talking about the proposed legality and legal recognition of marriage, it becomes salient because it's been salient as a cause for ending a marriage, even absent any other reason. Even if it's not grounds for preventing someone from marrying, it's enough to bring the issue of procreation into the discussion for that reason alone. Marriage as an institution historically came about precisely because it was intended to foster and support the family unit as they bore and raised offspring. I fail to see how you can blithely dismiss it as unimportant when a significant chunk of human history seems to disagree with you on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I'm not making any arguments about how little or much the government should be involved in marriage. I'm just saying that it needs to treat straight and gay unions the same. And since the SCOTUS is not contemplating getting the government out of marriage but instead contemplating giving gay unions legal equality to gay unions, it must rule against Prop. 8.
    If it's going to rule at all, I see no compelling reason why they should. It's not an enumerated power of the Federal government, so the SCOTUS has no business ruling on it at all. For the same reason, they should strike down DOMA out of hand.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  6. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    That's entirely beside the point, really. The issue is that for some reason, you seem to think that the Supreme Court can invent rights for the Federal government to protect and intervene in.

    The problem is that there is nowhere in the Constitution that spells out the government's role in defining, defending, or otherwise interacting with marriage in any form, whatsoever. Therefore, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, the issue is one that should be reserved to the States or to the people at large. The Federal government should not have any position on marriage at all... not the DOMA, not a ruling on Proposition 8, nothing.
    I can see that I haven't been clear enough about my position. I actually agree with you that laws concerning marriage should be left up to the states. You are right, the 9th and 10th amendments do say that.

    But here's the catch, the 14th amendment requires the states to apply the laws they do create, equally. The Constitution also requries that each states recognize the legal records of other states (Artice 4 Section 1) i.e., Marriage.

    I have a legal marriage certificate from the state of Connecticut. DOMA allows Florida to not recognize my marriage despite the fact that it is legal. That is unconstitutional.

    And, even without DOMA, the states are making laws about marriage (as who can be in one) and they aren't applying the laws equally like the 14th Amendment says they should.

  7. #26
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    But here's the catch, the 14th amendment requires the states to apply the laws they do create, equally. The Constitution also requries that each states recognize the legal records of other states (Artice 4 Section 1) i.e., Marriage.
    Sure... they have an obligation to acknowledge that in a given state, a legal record exists to the effect that someone got married.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    I have a legal marriage certificate from the state of Connecticut. DOMA allows Florida to not recognize my marriage despite the fact that it is legal. That is unconstitutional.
    That remains to be seen. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Marijuana is legal in Colorado. It doesn't mean that all the states have to agree. In fact, the DOMA basically applies the same laws that govern virtually every other statute in America to marriage, since some States have decided to legalize gay marriage and others have decided to forbid it. Within the confines of each state, the States *are* applying the law equally. All marriage certificates between homosexual couples are equally invalid, since the legal code of their state does not recognize that domestic arrangement as legally constituting a "marriage."

    The problem I have is that if this were purely about contract law and the enforcement of civil contracts between consenting adults, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead of settling for what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable compromise in Civil Unions, the gay community has instead chosen to impose its own notion of what "marriage" means upon the rest of the country, whether they like it or not. It's not just about who can live with whom or who can love whom. It's about using the government as a billy club to force other people to recognize a domestic partnership that does not confirm with the socially predominant viewpoint on what defines marriage... as a marriage. If it were really just about equal treatment under the law, civil unions should have been a perfectly reasonable and elegant solution to the problem. Obviously, that's just not true, because that's not really what this legislative battle is about. As far as I'm concerned, Proposition 8 and all the other laws like it are chickens coming home to roost in the gay community for trying to force other people to recognize a domestic partnership as marriage when they do not agree with or adhere to that normative standard.

    For that reason and for the reason that I believe the Federal government has no business sticking its nose into what rightly belongs to either the States or to the People, I hope that Proposition 8 is upheld.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    It's not a fallacious appeal to tradition because there are other logical and reasonable points to back up the claim. If the only supporting point was, "that's the way we've always done it," then we could talk about a fallacy. The problem is that you simply disagree with the characterization of the position as potentially logical and valid because you disagree with the conclusion. You have different considerations you're making in your decision of who and what types of marriage should be recognized. That's fine... but don't just dismiss the other side as a fallacy when it's not.
    I'm sorry but the argument I was responding to forwarded the conclusion based on what was historically agreed to. That is an appeal to tradition.

    Using an appeal to tradition does not mean that the conclusion forwarded is automatically wrong. But it does mean that the conclusion is not supported by the argument using the appeal to tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    To speak to a point that Gemini made earlier and to address just one of the many perfectly logical reasons that it might be better for heterosexual couples to have a unique status in society, let's deal with some of the known risk factors of homosexuality.
    The FACT is that there are are higher rates of suicide, STD infections including HIV and Hepatitis, and psychological disorders in homosexual people. I'm not making a disparaging statement... it's just medical facts, with numbers to back them up. That means that among homosexuals, even those who "procreate," there is a much greater chance that the children being raised by those parents will suffer the negative effects of those and many other diseases that tend to be more common in homosexuals. Is it grounds for the Federal government to step in and forbid it? I don't think so... but that doesn't mean that people who feel that way are being unreasonable or illogical.
    If they think those things are a valid reason to deny gays the right to marry, they are being unreasonable and illogical as those things do not logically make up a legally valid reason to deny gays the right to marry.



    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    It just means that you disagree with them as to what constitutes sufficient cause for the Federal government to become involved in what could very reasonably be construed as a public health issue.
    Well, LOGICALLY if one is concerned with STD rates amongst gays they should be encouraging gay marriage since marriage promotes monogamy and therefore inhibits promiscuity and therefore should decrease the spread of STDs amongst gays.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I don't think that's one of the arguments that's been made in this thread. I certainly haven't made it and don't plan to. The issue is not that it "might" happen... the issue is that if the government decides to take a role in dictating who is and isn't allowed to marry and who has to recognize those marriages, it's logically inconsistent *not* to expand the definition to include any combination of consenting adults.
    If you say so. But unless there's a problem with that, who cares?


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Marriage as an institution historically came about precisely because it was intended to foster and support the family unit as they bore and raised offspring. I fail to see how you can blithely dismiss it as unimportant when a significant chunk of human history seems to disagree with you on this point.
    You realize that you are appealing to tradition, right?

    And the procreation argument makes little sense. If there had been a law in place for a long time that said "only couples who are capable of procreation can marry" and it was consistently applied to every single couple who wanted to get married (so no infertile straight couples, no post-menopausal couples, etc.) THEN I would buy the "procreation is essential argument" as a sincere and valid reason to ban other marriages that lack procreative potential (I might not agree with it but I can't say they aren't being inconsistent). But to suddenly forward the "procreation" criteria when it was NEVER used before just because a certain controversial group wants to marry and STILL not suggest that we apply it to non-procreative straight couples? Do you honestly think that makes any logical sense at all and the motivation for the argument is not plainly transparent?

    And it's a fact that children who are raised by two parents, gay or straight, fare better than children raised by just one parent. So if a single mother is raising a child and she falls in love with a woman, the child is better off if the couple stay together than if they break up. And the child is even better off if they marry as the child will have a more stable home environment and likewise can receive legal benefits regarding his step-parent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    If it's going to rule at all, I see no compelling reason why they should. It's not an enumerated power of the Federal government, so the SCOTUS has no business ruling on it at all. For the same reason, they should strike down DOMA out of hand.
    I think equal protection of the law is a federal concern.
    Last edited by mican333; March 26th, 2013 at 05:14 PM.

  10. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palace of Kubla Khan and bovine worshippers
    Posts
    3,011
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Everybody's talking about rights here, and I haven't heard anybody mention the rights of bi-sexuals. Why should they be discriminated against? They should have, at minimum, one male spouse and one female spouse.

    A big problem with the argument is that the gay marriage movement talks about equality for everyone, but their argument only addresses the rights of gays, and not other sectors of society. Why is always all about them? Why not apply it to everyone?

    Bottom line, is marriage just a free-for-all that requires little more than having a pulse after age 18? We could have a program called No Adult Left Behind, or we could even have National Marriage Care, where it's mandated for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    You can’t give the right to one person, and not another.
    Other than the 43 valid exceptions to that statement. You may wish to rephrase that argument. Hence, at present you've oversimplified your own argument. Are you instead going for "one person who is a consenting adult", or are you extending it further?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The problem I have is that if this were purely about contract law and the enforcement of civil contracts between consenting adults, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead of settling for what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable compromise in Civil Unions, the gay community has instead chosen to impose its own notion of what "marriage" means upon the rest of the country, whether they like it or not. It's not just about who can live with whom or who can love whom. It's about using the government as a billy club to force other people to recognize a domestic partnership that does not confirm with the socially predominant viewpoint on what defines marriage... as a marriage. If it were really just about equal treatment under the law, civil unions should have been a perfectly reasonable and elegant solution to the problem. Obviously, that's just not true, because that's not really what this legislative battle is about. As far as I'm concerned, Proposition 8 and all the other laws like it are chickens coming home to roost in the gay community for trying to force other people to recognize a domestic partnership as marriage when they do not agree with or adhere to that normative standard.

    For that reason and for the reason that I believe the Federal government has no business sticking its nose into what rightly belongs to either the States or to the People, I hope that Proposition 8 is upheld.
    You nailed it, Talthas. The pleas being made don't jibe with their stated motives, pure and simple. Marriage is consequently getting more and more politicized, which unfortunately turns it into another department of the government. The National Relationship Association — just what we need.

    Questions the pro-gay marriage crowd haven't adequately addressed, and are probably afraid of addressing:
    • Should any two male adults be allowed to marry? For instance, should two heterosexual men be allowed to marry? Should a father and his 18 year-old son be allowed to marry?
    • If any two adults of the same gender should be allowed to marry, why would you discriminate against an infertile man marrying his 18 year-old daughter, or his mother? Should a mother and her adult son be allowed to marry if they promise not to procreate?
    • According to gays, you can't properly express your love for someone without it being called a marriage. Thus, polyamorous people are still being denied their rights. What makes gay people better than polyamorous people?
    • What about other sexual orientations? Are those people being discriminated against too, or is it just gays?
    anything could be an illusion and we wouldn't know the difference... proof schmoof...

  11. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    --Definition of marriage--

    This whole thing is an attack on the definition of marriage. The "appeal to tradition" fallacy is not applicable, because Marriage means what tradition has dictated it to be. This is not to say that it "ought" to be that way, it is just a statement of fact. Marriage = Man + woman. Therefore the idea of "gay marriage" is nonsensical.


    --Legal Rights--
    In an effort to protect legal rights, the meaning of the word "marriage" is being blamed, but that is not the problem. The problem is that Gays are denied access to an equally protected legal standing as heterosexuals. The question is, is there any requirement to extend the legal benefits of marriage to any other legal status? As far as I car I am fore it. Create an equal legal status that receives the legal standing of marriage that is not limited by the meaning of the word "marriage".

    This battle is one over "naming rights" not individual rights. It is an attempt to usurp meaning of a word and cloth one group in the historical shroud of another.

    The entire debate is laced with intolerance toward married couples and the long history that it has. A minority group wants to destroy that history so that it can be confused for it.
    To serve man.

  12. Likes Talthas liked this post
  13. #30
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    You really don't see how this creates ANOTHER inequality by allowing a woman to marry a man, but a man can't marry a man? You are legally allowing a woman to do something that a man cannot do. That is NOT equal application.
    Inequality of outcome is not a venue of law. Inequality of application is. No part of the constitution or common law says that laws must result in the same outcomes for individuals, only that they are applied uniformly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    The SCOTUS would disagree with you:
    SCOTUS also says that a tomato is a vegetable when, biologically, it is a vegetable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini

    This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0001_ZO.html
    Exactly, not because they were forbidding interracial marriages, but because the law only applied to African Americans. It did not apply uniformly over the entire population. A white person could marry an Asian or a Turk for example. The law was specifically targeted at one particular group within a class (african americans within the class of race). That is why it did not meet the equal protection clause within the Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    Of course I do. My entire argument is based on equal application of the law.
    Good, then you recognize that the law is about equal application of the law to all citizens, not about its resulting outcome?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    If it's independent of the state, then whey the need for a state issued marriage license?
    Because the state wishes to recognize that social arrangement within law.

    Corporations are legal recognitions of the per-existing, and independent, ability of individuals to partner for business purposes.

    Birth Certificates are legal recognition of the per-existing, and independent, ability of people to be born.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    And the state of Florida should recognize my marriage per Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution as well.
    Ok, but that only means that Florida recognizes that you are married in another state, it does not mean that they must apply that state's marriage laws to their hearings or practices.

    For example, if a couple are married in a community property state, but divorce in a non-community property state, the divorcing state is under no obligation to recognize that community property arrangement. If a mother moves with her child to a new state, that state doesn't need to recognize the child support laws of the old state, it applies its own laws (once jurisdiction has been met).


    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    I should not have used the word declare. I should have used the word extend.

    The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:

    The right to interstate travel
    The right to intrastate travel
    The right to privacy[10] (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
    a. The right to marriage[11][12]
    b. The right to procreation [13]
    c. The right for a woman to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability [14][15]
    d. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices) [16]
    e. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights
    So we agree first off that SCOTUS cannot create a right.

    And that SCOTUS's ability to extend a right depends on it pre-existing in the Constitution right? (The cases you reference are all examples of SCOTUS arguing that this right already existed within the Constitution)
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --Definition of marriage--

    This whole thing is an attack on the definition of marriage. The "appeal to tradition" fallacy is not applicable, because Marriage means what tradition has dictated it to be. This is not to say that it "ought" to be that way, it is just a statement of fact. Marriage = Man + woman. Therefore the idea of "gay marriage" is nonsensical.
    Support or retract that it's a fact that marriage = man + woman.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is an attempt to usurp meaning of a word and cloth one group in the historical shroud of another.

    The entire debate is laced with intolerance toward married couples and the long history that it has. A minority group wants to destroy that history so that it can be confused for it.
    All completely unsupported claims as well.

  15. #32
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract that it's a fact that marriage = man + woman.
    That is the defintion of the word.

    the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

    Even in this definition same-sex "marriage" can only be defined in relation to classical marriage.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  17. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is the defintion of the word.

    the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

    Even in this definition same-sex "marriage" can only be defined in relation to classical marriage.
    Because the classical marriage came first and therefore all that follow will have to have similarities to it.

    But it's not a fact that marriage is only between a man and woman.

  18. #34
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because the classical marriage came first and therefore all that follow will have to have similarities to it.

    But it's not a fact that marriage is only between a man and woman.
    Yes it is, the definition of the word applies to those of opposite sex. That is why we say "same sex" marriage, not just "marriage."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes it is, the definition of the word applies to those of opposite sex. That is why we say "same sex" marriage, not just "marriage."
    Who's "we"? If my gay uncle or gay step-brother or any gay friend of mine gets married, I will say that they are "married" and that they had a "marriage" ceremony and I will support equal recognition of their "marriage".

    And anyone is free to disagree with my usage of the term but it's not an objective fact that I'm using the term incorrectly. In fact, the dictionary clearly says that I'm using the word correctly.

  20. #36
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Who's "we"? If my gay uncle or gay step-brother or any gay friend of mine gets married, I will say that they are "married" and that they had a "marriage" ceremony and I will support equal recognition of their "marriage".

    And anyone is free to disagree with my usage of the term but it's not an objective fact that I'm using the term incorrectly. In fact, the dictionary clearly says that I'm using the word correctly.
    It is when the dictionary defines it as such. Because you use the word in a manner that is inconsistent with its definition does not mean that that is not the definition.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is when the dictionary defines it as such. Because you use the word in a manner that is inconsistent with its definition does not mean that that is not the definition.
    When there are two definitions offered in a dictionary, using any of them is being consistent with the dictionary.

  22. #38
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When there are two definitions offered in a dictionary, using any of them is being consistent with the dictionary.
    And if you use the second definition you are appealing to the first. The second definition cannot be used in a standalone manner without being self-referential.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And if you use the second definition you are appealing to the first. The second definition cannot be used in a standalone manner without being self-referential.
    And that does not alter the fact that I am correctly using the word "marriage" when I use it in regards to the second definition.

    And more to the point, definitions are not facts. The dictionary records the words that people use. So a hundred years ago, the dictionary definition was exclusively referring to man & woman. And now that gay unions are a new concept, it is a secondary definition. Odds are in a few decades, the definitions will be more or less equal. And at no point is any of this factually correct. It's actually entirely subjective - a word means what it means because that's what people think it means and if they think it means something else, then it does.

    So it's not really a "fact" that any word means anything.

  24. #40
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that does not alter the fact that I am correctly using the word "marriage" when I use it in regards to the second definition.
    Nor does it alter the fact that by doing so you are making a reference to an institution between two people of opposite sex and then adding on a qualifier that these people are of the same sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And more to the point, definitions are not facts.
    You asked him to support that it is factually true that marriage had that definition. It is factually true that marriage has that definition.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  25. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 08:56 PM
  2. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 01:39 PM
  3. Disastrous Oral Arguments
    By CliveStaples in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 11:54 AM
  4. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 02:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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