chemdude1232
Active Member
That's his opinion, and I think at some level we ought to respect that. I think we're saying largely the same thing, just from different perspectives, Hoppy.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
That's his opinion, and I think at some level we ought to respect that. I think we're saying largely the same thing, just from different perspectives, Hoppy.
Hopper
Banned
I agree. Especially with over 1,000 monetary benefits from the government at stake. But, again, whether one is "for" or "against" gay marriage says nuthin, in itself, about whether it is unconstitutional to prohibit it.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're looking at this from two different perspectives. I'm looking at gay marriage from the perspective of "if two people care enough about each other to enter into the sacred blah blah blah" while I think you investigate it from a gov't perspective. While the monetary benefits play a role, I would hope that that is not the primary motivation for the majority of gay marriages to occur.
Regarding the constitutionality of gay marriage...I can't speak for or against it directly. I'm not versed in law (nor am I interested enough in it to plow through tax benefits texts. If you are then I welcome your input), but I am versed in the moral/philosophical implications of the denial of basic rights.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, we already talked about this. I have no objection to them using the word "marriage" to describe their romance, or to publicly declare their eternal love for each other in a solemn ceremony. If that's all you're advocating, then we agree.
Well, I aint no bottom feeder neither. Ultimately what is "constitutional" is whatever at least 5 Supreme Court Justices say it is. It's just that this whole thing that Kicky brought up (and others before him) relates to what is "constitutional" not what is "moral" or "philosophically desirable."
chemdude1232
Active Member
Point(s) taken. I'd be willing to bet it does eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Time to start taking bets on the outcome. I'm guessing 5-4, though which side "wins" is a toss-up.
In other words, because he's gay he must be wrong? Saying he feels that way because he's gay isn't a refutation of his argument, in fact its a total refusal to deal with his argument. Unless Nelson read the entire opinion in those few minutes, I don't think his conclusory statement can really be based on much other than his personal feelings.
How do you know it was in his own interest? How do you know he wants to get married?
If his ruling was based only on his own self-interest why doesn't the ruling insist that Prop 8 has to pass strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny? Why was he willing, instead, to weigh the various arguments against the much lower hurdle?
Your argument (if you can even call it that) is based on a single fallacy: attacking the messenger rather than his argument. Neither you, nor the person you're citing, has bothered to read the argument.
Hopper
Banned
Kicky, you miss the gist, and the real point, of my response. I said I don't think the ballgame is over.
One gay judge in San Francisco opining about the 14th amendment as it relates to gay marriage is kinda like a legislative aide who cooked up a new bill to present sayin he thinks his measures should be passed into law. He can think all he wants, but he don't ultimately count, whether he's right or wrong.
One gay judge in San Francisco opining about the 14th amendment as it relates to gay marriage is kinda like a legislative aide who cooked up a new bill to present sayin he thinks his measures should be passed into law. He can think all he wants, but he don't ultimately count, whether he's right or wrong.
Last edited:
This is less true than you might think because the federal trial judge usually gets the final say on issues of fact while appeals courts generally only review issues of law. In that sense, the trial judge's ruling is a lot more important than you're giving it credit for.
There's already been one op-ed up on the times theorizing that the decision is specifically designed to take advantage of that fact and limit the basis for review.
Hopper
Banned
Well, the issue here is a legal one, not a factual one, really. What a "rational relation" is more of an apriori question. You don't need factual testimony from an expert sayin he don't see no relationship.
Hopper
Banned
I went on to say this, originally, although I didn't quote it a second time:
"God only knows how many billions this judge thinks he is telling the country it must spend on homosexual marriages because anything else would violate the U.S Constitution, eh? I gotta feelin this here ballgame aint zakly over yet, know what I'm sayin?"
I'm simply suggesting that the gay rights advocate I quoted is probably right. This is probably more of a political issue than a legal one. You have already pointed out how low the standard was for the "defendant" to prevail--which simply means it will be quite easy to "overturn" his decision, if that's what higher courts want to do. With tremendous financial implications seemingly at stake, this goes far beyond what one homosexual thinks is "fair."
"God only knows how many billions this judge thinks he is telling the country it must spend on homosexual marriages because anything else would violate the U.S Constitution, eh? I gotta feelin this here ballgame aint zakly over yet, know what I'm sayin?"
I'm simply suggesting that the gay rights advocate I quoted is probably right. This is probably more of a political issue than a legal one. You have already pointed out how low the standard was for the "defendant" to prevail--which simply means it will be quite easy to "overturn" his decision, if that's what higher courts want to do. With tremendous financial implications seemingly at stake, this goes far beyond what one homosexual thinks is "fair."
You still need to justify applying a different standard for receiving state entitlements. If you want to remove all state entitlements for all marriages, that's a fair position that will go nowhere politically. Culling out one type of marriage for that treatment is unfair.
While sirkickyass has focused on poll taxes, I'm going with Loving vs. Virginia. The courts just stepped in and overturned laws against interracial marriages. do you feel they acted improperly then? If not, can you name one rational reason why the court acted correctly then, but not now?
Poe's Law.
People who agree with you always seem to exhibit a large amount of intellectual clarity.
It's been a common understanding that non-adaptive features can arise (for example, the sexually antagonistic selection model of human homosexuality would say it is a non-adaptive behavior). It's to be expected that similar behaviors in vastly different species would require difference conceptual frameworks to explain, so no *single* conceptual framework will suffice (for example, in many species sexually antagonistic selection would not be a good model). Your combination of the two to say that homosexual behavor would not explainable within a conceptual framework (such as sexually antagonistic selection) is inappropriate.
1,049 benefits does not mean that 1,000 of them are monetary in nature. For example, the right to be next-of-kin in making medical decisions is not a monetary benefit.
You seem to be focused on the money aspect. Do financial considerations (even as large as those you suggest) trump civil rights considerations? How much extra have school system had to spend to teach heavily pigneted children to the same standard as lightly pigmented children? Should the judges have considered that in Brown vs. Board of Education? Should they have considered the monetary aspects of supporting interracial marriages in Loving vs. Virginia?
LOL, crybaby....
LOL. So you're saying that people who agree with Hopper exhibit a large amount of intellectual clarity? That's a new spin!
Or did you mean that any person feels that those on their side of the debate are the smarter ones? I'd make a guess, but I don't want to assume anything here.
If Hopper and I never disagree on anything, almost as if we are the same person, that must be true.
I was referring to a generic you. I'll try to remember to use "one" next time.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Sex is the stimulation between sexual organ and sexual organ through direct contact. Male and female anatomy are clearly made for that. All other "forms" of sex are just mimicing heterosexual contact that would come from male and female intercourse. Including hands, oral, anal, strap ons, etc.
My point is homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse through direct sexual organ contact.
And we all thought you were stupid. Boy, how sheepish do WE feel...?
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Go Brigham Young University Football!
chemdude1232
Active Member
Voting is the act of expressing or signifying will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot. Originally only men could do it. Although women have fully functioning sexual organs, they were barred from it until the 19th amendment was passed.
Drinking out of a water fountain is the act of procuring water from a spout with the aim of rehydrating yourself. Originally only white men could do it from all fountains. Although black people had skin at the time, the pigmentation therein was too dark to warrant their hydration from said fountains until the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Fast forward to today. "Sexual intercourse" means vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio or cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex (according to some states' Judicial Branches). Originally this term applied to heterosexuals only. Although homosexuals have sexual organs and the capacity to love just as much as heterosexuals, their sexual acts were deemed "mimicking" by Bean.
Bean, words, ideas, and concepts evolve. Without this evolution of semantics, we'd all be in a much sorrier state of being. I still don't quite understand your hesitance at accepting their physical acts of love as "sex," and that being the vehicle to bar them the usage of a single, solitary word: marriage.