• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Dessi said:
Indeed it is. Anti-gay bigots are fond of falling back on comments that homosexuality is "unnatural" or leads to disease as one of their first lines of attack on LGBT equality. And of course, they're wrong. As are all of their other attacks on marriage equality and gay rights more generally.

Naturally, however, the argument for same-gender marriage is a constitutional matter. See the Cato Institutes constitutional case for Marriage Equality:



Interesting quote:

"14 times, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, right of liberty, right of privacy, right of association, right of spirituality. When the Supreme Court considered the interracial marriage case, they didn't call it interracial marriage, they just called it marriage."

Watch the video, its 7 and a half minutes of your life.

Laws prohibiting same-gender marriage fail to meet a rational basis test -- that is, there's no rational basis for prohibiting same-gender marriage, no harm to heterosexual marriages when gay people can marry. It fails to meet the constitutional requirements of equal protection for gay couples, by specifically singling them out as being inferior to heterosexual couples.

The constitutional argument for marriage equality is lopsidedly, overwhelming tipped in favor of supporters. Gay people want to marry for all of the same reasons straight people marry; protecting that right benefits them without infringing on any of your rights at all.

0 for 7, speaking of one-sided arguments tipped decidedly in favor of LGBT supporters...
Click to expand...

No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
 
cwalner said:
Pity all those unnatural species out there that reproduce asexually in violation of the will of the 'God of Nature'. I am not certain, but IIRC there are actually more of those than ones that reproduce sexually.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware that ever happens with human beings. An important distinction.
 
Robert Prey said:
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
Click to expand...

So procreation is a direct result of marriage?

The only human beings ever concieved in the history of mankind, were done so due to heterosexual marriage?
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The voice of the people, of the Common Law, Natural Law and Common Sense overruled by two deviant black robed oath takers. God, help us, but only temporarily.
Click to expand...

As at least three of those things don't exist ("Natural Law", "Common Sense" and "God"), and "the voice of the people" and "Common Law" are neither unanimous or infallible I'm failing to see a problem here.
 
Last edited:
Dunstan said:
Oh, you mean the Constitutional provision that says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"?

You know, the one that's in Article I, Section 10, titled "Powers prohibited of States"? The one that applies (by its own words) only to states and not the federal government? (As opposed to Article I, Section 9, titled Limits on Congress, and as contrasted to Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress, which specifically gives Congress the authority to coin money and issue debt but contains no provision about only "gold and silver"?)

If you're going to lecture other people on not following the Constitution, you might try reading it first. Or was this you using your "Common Sense" again?
Click to expand...

Yeah, well my constitution seems different than yours. There are no such titles as you have posted. You apparently have a constitution that has been edited with editorial comment.

But the notion that the Art. I Sec. 10 legal tender law only applies to the states, presumes two different legal tenders -- one for the States and one for the Feds. An absurd interpretation on its face. Common sense.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
You're not listening. I can easily argue against being able to marry a horse without relying on "common sense". A marriage is a consensual partnership of two parties. If it is not consensual, it's really ownership or slavery, not a marriage. A horse cannot provide consent, thus one cannot marry a horse. QED.
Click to expand...

So, marriages in certain 3d world nations that are arranged by the parents and not necessarily consensual are not marriages? You see, you define it conveniently and leave out male and female and even leave out "human" or incestual marriage, or anything regarding age. Anything not in your definition goes. Totally lacking in common sense.
 
Robert Prey said:
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
Click to expand...

Logical?? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Even if procreation were dependent on heterosexual marriage(which it's not). What possible impact could allowing gay people to marry have on heterosexual marriage.
 
Robert Prey said:
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
Click to expand...

Taken to the logic extreme, letting consenting homosexual adults get married to each other does nothing to prevent consenting heterosexual adults from getting married to each other as well and have children.
 
Robert Prey said:
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
Click to expand...
Just like letting infertile or older people get married would be a disaster because no offspring are possible? Your concern for the critical shortage of children on the planet is truly overwhelming.
 
Finster said:
Logical?? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Even if procreation were dependent on heterosexual marriage(which it's not). What possible impact could allowing gay people to marry have on heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

Other than kinda ruining the neighborhood, it affords rights privileges and immunities that the law intended for traditional families -- the basic unit of society.
 
Robert Prey said:
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
Click to expand...
In order for this to be a logical extreme, you'd have to assume that everyone enters only same-sex marriages. That is a rather poor assumption and quite unrealistic.
 
Upchurch said:
In order for this to be a logical extreme, you'd have to assume that everyone enters only same-sex marriages. That is a rather poor assumption and quite unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Actually, by keeping with Robert's rationale, this will offer a loophole for those bigots who are actually self-hating closeted homosexuals.

"Well, I didn't want to get gay married, but it's my understanding that now we have to."
 
Is there a linguist in the house?

So far we seem to have translated that:

Logic = reductio ad absurdum.

Common sense = An utter disregard for the beliefs of anyone else

Laws of nature = none of that disgusting stuff that animals do out in nature.

Having a little trouble translating 'absurd/ridiculous interpretation'.
In some cases it seems to mean 'What I claimed in the past, and am now denying I ever said', and in other cases it seems to mean 'observable reality is wrong'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom