Anti-gay marriage rallies as NY ceremonies begin

[SlackMaster]

Does everybody agree that it will eventually be appealed to the Supreme court? Yes they do (and if you’ve been paying attention then I suspect you do, as well).

I wouldn't be too certain about that.

Even the governor of the state in which prop 8 was passed didn't want to defend it in court. They conceded outright that it was unconstitutional. Opponents of gay marriage don't have the best track record in the courts.

I think they're going to keep trying to get this added to ballots so the masses of bigots can get constitutional amendments in place while the national attitude is still slightly in their favor.

They'd better work fast though, attitude towards gay marriage is shifting fast and your side isn't doing so well.

 

[The Baron]

"...they're going to keep trying to get this added to ballots so the masses of bigots..." - SlackMaster

So only bigots oppose homosexual marriage?

Interesting.

 

[SlackMaster]

"...they're going to keep trying to get this added to ballots so the masses of bigots..." - SlackMaster

So only bigots oppose homosexual marriage?

Interesting.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Yep!

What would you call people who would seek to deny other people their rights because of their own prejudices?

 

[Belgarath]

"...they're going to keep trying to get this added to ballots so the masses of bigots..." - SlackMaster

So only bigots oppose homosexual marriage?

Interesting.

Well who else does? The only people who don't like gay marriage are those who are bigoted against homosexuality. So far no reasons have been stated against homosexuality except bigotry against homosexuality. Biological arguments can all be invalidated, and those are pretty much all the "factual" arguments anti-homosexuals have.

 

[Redress]

"...they're going to keep trying to get this added to ballots so the masses of bigots..." - SlackMaster

So only bigots oppose homosexual marriage?

Interesting.

Since there is a distinct lack of rational arguments against SSM, then one must assume the reason people oppose it are irrational.

 

[The Baron]

"Yep." - SlackMaster

So you can't simply just "disagree" with someone...you actually have to "hate" them?

You really believe that?

 

[Redress]

"Yep." - SlackMaster

So you can't simply just "disagree" with someone...you actually have to "hate" them?

You really believe that?

There is a difference between disagreeing with some one, and working to ensure they do not have the same rights as others.

 

[SlackMaster]

"Yep." - SlackMaster

So you can't simply just "disagree" with someone...you actually have to "hate" them?

You really believe that?

You can disagree, but then you have to state rational reasons as to why you disagree.

I agree with Redress

Since there is a distinct lack of rational arguments against SSM, then one must assume the reason people oppose it are irrational.

 

[Aderleth]

“Never said they did.” - Aderleth

So you agree!

Excellent! Now we won’t have to waste any additional time talking about what the Supreme Court hasn’t done.

I'm not sure why you were wasting time doing so to begin with.

“Never said it was. If you go back and look, you'll notice that I'm pointing out that the constitutional reasoning is at least analogous, if not essentially identical.” - Aderleth

Odd.

First you agree that race and homosexuality are not the same thing and then try to make the case that they are identical in reasoning.

Well, let me say it again to clear it up for you…race and homosexuality are not the same thing.

Yeah. Either you're being disingenuous again or you're not terribly bright. You are aware, I would assume, that things that are different can sometimes be analyzed using parallel reasoning under constitutional analysis? Courts do so all the time. I know that might be tough for you to wrap your mind around, but try to work with me here. Why don't you explain to me why the reasoning I utilized would not be functionally identical for both issues. Re-stating the obvious fact that race and sexual orientation are not literally the same thing will not be accepted as a substitute for an actual argument.

“Has Walker's ruling on this issue been overturned? No it has not.” - Aderleth

Does everybody agree that it will eventually be appealed to the Supreme court? Yes they do (and if you’ve been paying attention then I suspect you do, as well).

Not so much, no. I, along with two of the most well respected and successful lawyers in the country (David Boies and Ted Olson) don't think any such thing. Like a lot of important issues it'll come down to Kennedy. The guy I used to clerk for clerked for Kennedy, and he tends to agree with me on this. But go on and run with your wishful thinking. I'll stick to the law as it stands.

“You may want to re-read the thing you quoted, because your comment contradicts what you quoted. Better yet, read the quote in context, because you've obviously missed the point.” - Aderleth

I disagree but go ahead and straighten me out.

I suggest you read the case for the context, but in a nutshell, what Walker is saying is that your claim that marriage is and always has been historically a union solely between a man and a woman is specious, and not actually supported by the evidence.

 

[The Baron]

But let me guess...you would be the one to determine what is a "rational reason", right?

 

[Aderleth]

But let me guess...you would be the one to determine what is a "rational reason", right?

To quote you from a page back: "Still nuthin' huh?"

 

[Belgarath]

But let me guess...you would be the one to determine what is a "rational reason", right?

Well currently, no one needs to determine what a "rational reason" looks like, since you aren't providing any reasons at all...but in answer to your question, the majority of society determines that. Or the majority of present society, in a case like this. So far, the majority is saying that rational reasons are those that can be proven with evidence and justifiably lead to a strong claim. So far, the anti-homosexuals haven't provided that. If the definition of "rational reason" changes to anything that is said that sounds clever, maybe the anti-homosexuals will have a chance, though personally I doubt it.

 

[Redress]

But let me guess...you would be the one to determine what is a "rational reason", right?

A rational argument would be one that would show actual harm from SSM. I can, rationally and logically, with data, show SSM would be a benefit to society. A rational argument against would have to show harm to society.

 

[SlackMaster]

But let me guess...you would be the one to determine what is a "rational reason", right?

Redress also discussed this earlier in post #48

He discussed "Rational Basis Review, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny".

So far, opponents of SSM have not been able to pass any of those tests.

 

[The Baron]

“Courts do so all the time. I know that might be tough for you to wrap your mind around, but try to work with me here. Why don't you explain to me why the reasoning I utilized would not be functionally identical for both issues. Re-stating the obvious fact that race and sexual orientation are not literally the same thing will not be accepted as a substitute for an actual argument.” - Aderleth

Oh, I get it! But point-of-fact there is nothing that race and homosexuality share to make the two analogous.

“Not so much, no. I, along with two of the most well respected and successful lawyers in the country (David Boies and Ted Olson) don't think any such thing. Like a lot of important issues it'll come down to Kennedy. The guy I used to clerk for clerked for Kennedy, and he tends to agree with me on this. But go on and run with your wishful thinking. I'll stick to the law as it stands.” - Aderleth

Ok, fine. Allow me to re-state then…

Whether it’s Prop 8 law or some other law, everyone does seem to agree that the issue of homosexual marriage by some means will end of being decided by the Supreme Court. If you wish to argue otherwise then you would be the first person I’ve heard to state such as opinion.

“I suggest you read the case for the context, but in a nutshell, what Walker is saying is that your claim that marriage is and always has been historically a union solely between a man and a woman is specious, and not actually supported by the evidence.” - Aderleth

Oh! And what evidence did he cite to support his claim? Because whether Walker (or anybody) for that matter like it or not, marriage has always been a union between men and women regardless of time, culture, place, religion, heritage, etc.

 

[The Baron]

"A rational argument would be one that would show actual harm from SSM. I can, rationally and logically, with data, show SSM would be a benefit to society." - Redress

Oh, I would love to see this!

 

[Redress]

Redress also discussed this earlier in post #48

He discussed "Rational Basis Review, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny".

So far, opponents of SSM have not been able to pass any of those tests.

The courts have only so far looked at Rational Basis Review, and deemed bans on SSM do not meet that level of scrutiny in 3 cases and two judges(2 cases, same judge in Mass on DOMA, 1 case in Cali on Prop 8). The Prop 8 case, Perry v Schwarzenegger, the judge rules it did not meat rational basis, but would actually be subject to Strict Scrutiny, which Holder and most legal scholars agree is the case.

 

[Redress]

"A rational argument would be one that would show actual harm from SSM. I can, rationally and logically, with data, show SSM would be a benefit to society." - Redress

Oh, I would love to see this!

See what? An argument for SSM?

About 1/3 of all lesbian women and 1/4 gay men have children. Many more would like to(I can document this with actual numbers if you need), plus a large number would like to adopt. Studies conclude conclusively that the gender of parents is irrelevant to how children turn out. Studies also show children do best in stable homes. Marriage promotes stability. Furthermore, marriage brings a large number(thousands) of federal benefits that enhance married households, which would benefit children in those households.

Your turn.

 

[Aderleth]

“Courts do so all the time. I know that might be tough for you to wrap your mind around, but try to work with me here. Why don't you explain to me why the reasoning I utilized would not be functionally identical for both issues. Re-stating the obvious fact that race and sexual orientation are not literally the same thing will not be accepted as a substitute for an actual argument.” - Aderleth

Oh, I get it! But point-of-fact there is nothing that race and homosexuality share to make the two analogous.

A conclusion is not an argument. The above statement is a conclusion. What do you understand to be the reasoning at issue in both, and why don't you think that reasoning is analogous?

Whether it’s Prop 8 law or some other law, everyone does seem to agree that the issue of homosexual marriage by some means will end of being decided by the Supreme Court. If you wish to argue otherwise then you would be the first person I’ve heard to state such as opinion.

Obviously, yes SCOTUS will eventually decide this issue. Current precedent, however, supports my position.

Oh! And what evidence did he cite to support his claim? Because whether Walker (or anybody) for that matter like it or not, marriage has always been a union between men and women regardless of time, culture, place, religion, heritage, etc.

Read the case and find out for yourself. I'm not about to quote several pages of legal text.

 

[Dustmop]

Oh! And what evidence did he cite to support his claim? Because whether Walker (or anybody) for that matter like it or not, marriage has always been a union between men and women regardless of time, culture, place, religion, heritage, etc.

Actually, this is not true. There are historical examples of same sex unions and marriages in Native American tribes, some areas of China, Greece, and Rome. During the prop 8 case, one of the expert witnesses testified that "several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples." She was judged by the court to be a qualified expert witness and to know what she was talking about. If you look up same sex marriage in any of these places, you will see the examples both of SSM marriage and of other marriage traditions which deviate from our current concept of heterosexual marriage. Defining marriage between one man and one woman occurred during the rise of Christianity. It is not a uniform definition across "time, culture, place, religion, heritage, etc."

Also, that heterosexual marriage is traditional is not a rational argument for opposing SSM. Why is tradition at all a valid reason for denying SSM?

Here is a link to the Prop 8 ruling: California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

 

[roguenuke]

It's not Star Wars

Star Wars and Star Trek can coexist. They do so quite nicely on both my DVD shelf and book shelf.

 

[roguenuke]

Not when it's meant to help society. And this is meant to protect those who don't have yet a fully conscious capability to detect evil.

Almost all censorship is about someone or a group of someones who believe that they are protecting children, society, or both from immorality or evil.

 

[Redress]

Star Wars and Star Trek can coexist. They do so quite nicely on both my DVD shelf and book shelf.

Star Trek makes me feel icky though, so it should not have the same quality shelf and shouldn't be allowed out in public.

 

[Paschendale]

Maybe we should start protesting church wedding and see how quickly the religious folks cry foul... No one likes a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Your Star]

Maybe we should start protesting church wedding and see how quickly the religious folks cry foul... No one likes a taste of their own medicine.

No more hetero's, no more hetero's!!!!!