• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No... all are under the same restrictions and therefore all all being treated the same. As such., there is no EP issue.
You'd be correct if that privilege were restricted from a portion of the citizenry entirely. Since it is not, there is no violation.

Sure there's discrimination. But don't take my word for it; after all, i'm not one of the lawyers that argued (and won) the case in a court of law based on such a defense. I'm simply a messageboard poster repeating their defense to you. If you think you have the secret to defeating their case in court, i'm sure there are a number of pro-prop 8 appeals groups that would gladly love to chat with you on the issue. Good luck!
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Its a shame that you have chosen to be dishonest, rather than admit someone else was right.

No, if you were right i'd admit it. I realize you have a different opinion, but it hasn't stood up to scrutiny. What is it you expect from the debate? Are you even looking for debate, for that matter? Or are you more interested in declaring a position, having it refuted, and then hope the issue just dies?
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Show this to be true. Good luck.

There's no need. The lawyers arguing the case have already done so. And to be honest, I don't think you'd accept such an argument, anyway, would you? I think it would be nice if everyone had no issue with gay marriage, but again, your opinion is your own, and I respect it.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You're still missing the problem. You are arguing that sexuality somehow, magically, nullifies the 14th Amendment in this argument. When pressed on the issue, you become nebulous. You are clinging to the same debate, even though that debate has been addressed and refuted. Again, I don't mean to belittle you, but i'm not sure how much clearer I can be. What would it take to get you to realize that the argument you're putting forth is inconsistent with your argument against equal protection? There is just a huge disconnect here, and unfortunately you're still clinging to the same defense even though it's been addressed already.

Where did I say anything about the 14th Amendment being "nullified"? Point me to the post. Show me my words where I said anything remotely similar to that. You are continually arguing against something I never said, mostly, I think, because you don't actually understand what I did say.

In fact, my argument rests very squarely on the 14th Amendment AND the jurisprudence which surrounds it, and the tests which have been developed over time to analyze whether or not a law runds afoul of the equal protection clause. If you were familiar with any of that and how to argue equal protection, you might actually know that. (I even explained the entire reasoning process in detail, and in simple, layman's language.)

But you don't get that. Instead, you seem to think I'm arguing that the 14th amendment is somehow "nullified" -- which is asinine, utterly and completely. If you have to make things up, how can you be right?


You're not being very academic here. I read what you wrote over and over, but it just doesn't add up.

That's simply because you haven't understood a word I've written. :shrug:


I have no idea why you keep dismissing the equal protection argument and keep injecting your sexuality defense.

I made an equal protection argument, and I in no way "injected" any "defense." Nothing I said has anything to do with "defense." I have nothing to "defend." This is only further evidence that you simply don't understand what the conversation is even about. :shrug:

It's like you are stuck on that point despite the fact it's been addressed and refuted. From here, this is where you _should_ read the argument I put forth and say, "you know, Singularity already addressed this, and it's been refuted. Let me try to explain another possible defense against the equal protection clause".

Except that you didn't. All you did was say "you think it nullifies the 14th Amendment. It doesn't." Which, of course, is simply stupid because I never said that, and if I had, your declaring it so wouldn't cut it anyway.

Again, I don't know why you can't seem to get past that.

Because you haven't addressed it effectively yet. :shrug:


The only thing I can tell you to do is maybe leave out the term 'sexuality' from your next defense, in the hopes that you eventually understand that we are past that already. I mean it's been addressed an umpteenth amount of times. Is there anything that I can do to help you to move forward here? We just keep going back to you presenting the same argument, me addressing it and refuting it, and you repeating the same argument.

And saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it so.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Where did I say anything about the 14th Amendment being "nullified"? Point me to the post. Show me my words where I said anything remotely similar to that. You are continually arguing against something I never said, mostly, I think, because you don't actually understand what I did say.

In fact, my argument rests very squarely on the 14th Amendment AND the jurisprudence which surrounds it, and the tests which have been developed over time to analyze whether or not a law runds afoul of the equal protection clause. If you were familiar with any of that and how to argue equal protection, you might actually know that. (I even explained the entire reasoning process in detail, and in simple, layman's language.)

Again, we are back to square one. I understand your argument perfectly. Here, let me repeat it for you so that you can stop this line of reasoning about who understands what argument, and realize where this argument fails. You maintain that, "in order for there to be an equal protection argument, there has be a class of individuals who are denied something on the basis of 'something' about that class of individuals. In this case, the argument is that people are being discriminated against on the basis of sexuality." You go on to say "that because in order to argue that something is being denied to someone, you have to define exactly what it is which is being denied, as well as the basis on which it's being denied. The only chance the equal protection argument has to succeed is if that which is being denied is based on something intrinsic about the individuals it's being denied to. In this case, the argument is that it's their sexuality."

Okay, before I continue, you now understand that we are both on the same page when it comes to what the argument between us is about. If you say that we don't after reading what I just wrote, then you can understand why I keep having to repeat the argument, as the words I quoted were yours exactly. They have been read and understood by me many times throughout this thread, and addressed. It's obvious, however, that I need to be a little more in depth, as there is still a disconnect between us.

So, moving forward, you then claim that "if sexuality isn't a necessary part of marriage, and it is not, then the equal protection argument fails." Still on the same page? I hope so, because those are your exact words again. This is where your argument gets nebulous, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Let me show you a full explanation as to why.

Let's lay out the two arguments' premises and conclusions. If you disagree with anything here, post and say so, and we can add or subtract anything you wish to.

A. The legal argument for:

Premise 1: The 14th Amendment says that privileges and immunities of the US citizen shall not be abridged by the state without due process of law.
Premise 2: Marriage is a privilege, according to the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Premise 3: Homosexuals are citizens who love same sex partners
Conclusion: Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

B. Your argument:

Premise 1: The 14th Amendment says that privileges and immunities of the US citizen shall not be abridged by the state without due process of law.
Premise 2: In order for there to be an equal protection argument, there has be a class of individuals who are denied something. In the case of homosexuals, they claim that they are being denied something based on sexuality.
Premise 3: Sexuality is not a component of marriage, therefore homosexuals cannot use this argument for marriage inclusion.
Conclusion: The 14th Amendment does not apply.

The problem in B. Your argument comes specifically at Premise 3, as i've said all along. Let me lay out my previous argument as well as things i've touched on, and you can get a clearer picture.

Problem #1: Your belief that 'sexuality is not a component of marriage'. This is arguable at best. First off, the entire reason for excluding same sex couples is based entirely on sexuality, right? How many times have we heard 'marriage is between a man and a woman' in these arguments against inclusion? Many times. So almost everyone against gay marriage would argue against the belief that sexuality is not a component of marriage, because they believe that sexuality is entirely the reason same sex couples should be excluded. Your argument, however, is just the opposite - it is not a component, which you attempt to reason is a viable means of excluding same sex couples in the equal protection argument laid out above. However, this argument could be used as a basis by homosexual couples FOR inclusion. After all, if sexuality is not a component of marriage, there is no reason to exclude them. The reason why? See Problem #2:

Problem #2: If 'Sexuality is not a component of marriage', then the sexuality argument becomes arbitrary. You're saying that sexuality is not a part of marriage, then go on to conclude that equal protection does not apply because of that, and therefore homosexual couples cannot appeal to equal protection to get married. Unfortunately, you've made sexuality arbitrary here; therefore, it cannot be used as an adequate defense. Let me show you why.

Let's say we have two couples that want to get married - couple A and couple B. Here are 3 details about couple A and couple B:

Couple A
enjoy watching soccer
live in Manhattan
Catholic

Couple B
travel to the Bahamas yearly
same-sex couple
eat at Sal's Pizza every monday

Given that, does any particular detail exclude one of the couples from getting married, according to your argument? No. Every detail listed is arbitrary by the argument you put forth, and no reason to exclude either couple from marriage. The enjoyment of soccer is not a component of marriage, neither is living in Manhattan, or being Catholic. Also, travelling to the Bahamas yearly is not a component of marriage, neither is sexuality, and enjoying a particular pizza place on Mondays. All of these factors are arbitrary, according to you.

So, given this, when you say 'sexuality is not a component of marriage', then use that to conclude that equal protection does not apply, that is akin to saying 'being Catholic is not a component of marriage', or 'travelling to the Bahamas yearly' is not a component of marriage, and concluding that people who do such things are not entitled to equal protection, and therefore cannot get married using the legal argument.

Problem #3: If by 'sexuality' you were referring to sexual attraction, then what is the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples attraction to eliminate one of them from marriage? It stands to reason that, given the equal protection clause, if heterosexual couples can get married who either are or are not sexually attracted to one another, than homosexual couples can, too. Fair is fair.

So, I hope we've cleared this hurdle. There is no need to repeat that I do not understand your argument, as I have clearly laid out both arguments, and hopefully demonstrated to you why your particular argument against equal protection application has a number of problems.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There's no need.
For your argument that not allwoing same-sex marriages violates the EP clause of the 14th amendment because of discrimination to stand, then you very certainly DO need to show how there is discrimination.
Good luck.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
For your argument that not allwoing same-sex marriages violates the EP clause of the 14th amendment because of discrimination to stand, then you very certainly DO need to show how there is discrimination.
Good luck.

And that's something i've done throughout this thread. Of course, I simply repeated the argument the lawyers used. And seeing as how they won the case in a court of law, well there you have it.

My recommendation? Perhaps you should email them and voice your displeasure at using the Constitution in such a manner.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And that's something i've done throughout this thread. Of course, I simply repeated the argument the lawyers used. And seeing as how they won the case in a court of law, well there you have it.
You're simply appealing to authority here.

If you cannot actually illsutrate and explain the supposed discrimination, just say so - no one will think the lesser of you.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You're simply appealing to authority here.

If you cannot actually illsutrate and explain the supposed discrimination, just say so - no one will think the lesser of you.

I've explained my position throughout the entire thread, and backed it all up with logical reasoning, examples that have withstood scrutiny, and yes, even an appeal to authority.

If you have any further arguments which you think are relevant to your position that you wish debated, then feel free to present them.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I've explained my position throughout the entire thread, and backed it all up with logical reasoning, examples that have withstood scrutiny, and yes, even an appeal to authority.
No. You've said "no, it IS discrimination" and you done nothing but ultimately restyour case on 'because a court agrees with me'.
You have not at ALL shown, in necessary terms, how treating everyone exactly the same discriminates agianst anyone.

When you think you can lay out that argument, let me know; I'll expect your continued attempt to avoid doing so as a concession of the point.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. You've said "no, it IS discrimination" and you done nothing but ultimately restyour case on 'because a court agrees with me'.
You have not at ALL shown, in necessary terms, how treating everyone exactly the same discriminates agianst anyone.

Post #331, top of the page. Feel free to reply to it at your leisure.

When you think you can lay out that argument, let me know; I'll expect your continued attempt to avoid doing so as a concession of the point.

You're simply avoiding the topic. I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to post a few relevant examples, and to debate those examples after they've been analyzed and the problems with them illustrated in plain English. There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Post #331, top of the page. Feel free to reply to it at your leisure.
I would, if it addressed the argument I made and shows how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone. B. Your argument:, noted above, is not -my- argument. As such, nothing you wrote above applies to -my- argument.

I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to show how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone; you have, thus far, failed to do so. There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so - either way, your continued avoidance is noted and your concession accepted.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I would, if it addressed the argument I made and shows how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone. B. Your argument:, noted above, is not -my- argument. As such, nothing you wrote above applies to -my- argument.

I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to show how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone; you have, thus far, failed to do so.

Quite the contrary. I've demonstrated many times how the 14th Amendment applies here, and even refuted every one of your examples. So far, you have not advanced the discussion beyond simply repeating yourself. I have invited you numerous times to further your position; in fact, I look forward to it.

But, since you claim that my post does not apply to your particular argument, I don't mind inserting or removing any of the above premises to illustrate _your_ argument more accurately. So, list any premises as to why you think the 14th does not apply here, and we can logically construct your argument, then see where it is we disagree.

There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so - either way, your continued avoidance is noted and your concession accepted.

I'll gladly accept your imitation as flattery. And regarding the issue of concession, I have done nothing to give you any indication that I have done so. In fact, given your argument, why would I? So I invite you again in the hopes that you will move this discussion forward, rather than go on to imagine a victory where none exists. But of course, far be it from me to burst anyone's bubble of imagination.
 
Last edited:

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quite the contrary. I've demonstrated many times how the 14th Amendment applies here, and even refuted every one of your examples.
This is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Disagree? See below.

But, since you claim that my post does not apply to your particular argument, I don't mind inserting or removing any of the above premises to illustrate _your_ argument more accurately. So, list any premises as to why you think the 14th does not apply here, and we can logically construct your argument, then see where it is we disagree.
I'm sorry -- if you had been paying any attention at all, this would not be necessary.
How can you say that you have refuted my argument when you clearly do not know know what my argument is?

I'll gladly accept your imitation as flattery.
That's because you apparently don't recognize. mockery.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Disagree? See below.

Actually it's the truth. It's unfortunate that you choose to not see it, despite the fact it's plain as day.


I'm sorry -- if you had been paying any attention at all, this would not be necessary.
How can you say that you have refuted my argument when you clearly do not know know what my argument is?

You seem to misunderstand. Let me spell it out clearly for you. Your argument has been refuted, and i'd like to help you make a coherent argument, so that you can see where exactly your examples have fallen short. I figure you may wish to add a few new premises here.


That's because you apparently don't recognize. mockery.

Then perhaps next time, you should focus less on attempted mockery, and more on attempting to construct coherent arguments. Thus far, you've failed at both.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Actually it's the truth.
Only for the intentionally dishonest.

You seem to misunderstand. Let me spell it out clearly for you. Your argument has been refuted
For that to be the case, you have to know what my argument is. Apparently, since you continue to ask me to lay out my argument, you do not.
Since you do not know what my argument is, it is impossible for your statement that my argument has been refuted to be true.

So, whenever you think you can actually refute my argument, man up and do it - your games are tiresome, and you are quickly proving yourself to be a great waste of time.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Only for the intentionally dishonest.

No.

For that to be the case, you have to know what my argument is. Apparently, since you continue to ask me to lay out my argument, you do not.
Since you do not know what my argument is, it is impossible for your statement that my argument has been refuted to be true.

So, whenever you think you can actually refute my argument, man up and do it - your games are tiresome, and you are quickly proving yourself to be a great waste of time.

Your argument was refuted a few pages ago. If, however, you wish to add a few more premises in the attempt to actually make a coherent one, as I said, i'll help. Or you can simply repeat yourself. Your choice.
 

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Prove it. Cite the post.

You mean posts, as it was a progressive affair. #222 and 223, your attempted comeback in #229, which was refuted in #296 and 298 respectively. Your posts #300, 301, and 303 refuted by #319, 311, and 312. Your posts #314, 315, and 316 refuted by #318, 319, 320. After this, you threw in the towel and simply began repeating your already-defeated arguments, which was followed by me simply repeating the refutations of those arguments. Of course, I have asked you for a number of pages to continue your argument in the attempt you could devise one that would end up being more valid, but thus far you have failed to provide anything new.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You mean posts, as it was a progressive affair. #222 and 223your attempted comeback in #229, which was refuted in #296 and 298 respectively.
Fail. These posts don't have anyhting to do with my argument.
More proof that you dont know what my argument is.

Your posts #300
This has not been refuted.

301, and 303 refuted by #319, 311, and 312
This is a joke. You're simply saying that I am wrong, without in any way showing how. That's not refutation, that's cowardice.

So, we're back to you continuing to claim you have refuted something, a statement made impossible by you not knowing what it is you have supposedly refuted.
You continue to make this claim, with full knowledge that you know you don't know what mny argument is - that is, you are continue to knowingly make false statements.

That is, at this point, its clear that you're simply lying. Given that you obviously have no intention of admitting that, or changing that, there's no need to waste more time on you.
 
Last edited:

Singularity

Hung like Einstein
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
514
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fail. These posts don't have anyhting to do with my argument.
More proof that you dont knwo what my argument is.

Actually, those posts made up the entire bulk of your argument addressed to me - give or take one or two which contained little of value - to which I replied and rebutted. It's understandable that you are taking such a repetitive position here, as it's obvious that your argument can no longer continue forward. However, I am willing to let you point out which of your posts made up your argument against me. Oh, and since the posts I cited have nothing whatsoever to do with your argument (as you've mistakenly claimed), please omit them. And needless to say, any posts you cite must be responding to me directly.


This has not been refuted.

Yes, it has.


This is a joke. You're simply saying that I am wrong, withough in any way showing how. That's not refutating, that's cowardice.

No, i'm saying your argument has been refuted. You realize this as well, because you simply keep repeating yourself.

So, we're back to you continuing to claim you have refuted something, a statement made impossible by you not knowing what it is you have supposedly refuted.
You continue to make this claim, with full knowledge that you know you don't know what mny argument is - that is, you are continue to knowingy make false statements.

That is, at this point, its clear that you're simply lying. Given that you obviously have no intention of admitting that, or changing that, there's no need towaste more time on you.

In other words, you finally realize that your argument is wrong, and you concede. I accept.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom