Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

Hicup said:

And??? ..... So..... How are you right again?


Tim-

Click to expand...

Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with due process, which means life, liberty, or property. It just so happens that marriage deals with all three. It has nothing to do with procreation. The government has historically supported marriage because it provides stable homes for children. That stability comes from the sharing of life, liberty, and property between two consenting adults in a harmonious relationship. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well.

Now I can't spell it out any better for you. If you want waste your time by using your own definition of "fundamental" rather than the legal definition, then have at it. I've tried to improve your understanding of Constitutional law so that you could at least coherently debate the topic, but I probably might as well have been trying to educate a wall.

Hicup said:

Yes it was gender discrimination. So? It's part of what makes up an individual identity, but not intrinsically exclusive to the individual. Gender imparts function to a society, at least outside of biologoy, and that function is arbitrary. Why would an arbitrary "thing" have fundamental rights? Unless, the gender bond is fundamental to the posterity of the state?

See.. It all boils down to procreation.


Tim-

Click to expand...

It all boils down to the fact that you have no idea what "fundamental right" means in the Constitutional sense.

Singularity -

1. Concern #1: Why must we look at the fundamental human phenotypic design - specifically that of the sexual organs - in order to correctly argue that the state is involved in marriage 'for the kids' and homosexuals are potentially excluded? What reason does the state need to look at the 'fundamental design of humanity' to determine who may or may not raise a child? Or did you mean something entirely different by fundamental design, and if so, what about that determines if the state either condones the raising of children by people with this characteristic, or excludes them because of it?

Click to expand...

Answered already but again. When men make laws they typically review the standards, and the application of such laws. All possible contingencies are considered. When marriage laws were defined, and encoded into US law, they did not ever suspect that the question of pro creative capacity would ever be a question, nor necessarily an exclusion to marriage. But what makes marriage fundamental is exactly the procreative qualities marriage imparts on the state. The state benefits from heterosexual marriage by way of the intrinsic qualities heterosexuals bring to the table.

Concern #2: Saying that "it is intrinsic to humanity to produce children" is not universally intrinsic, as intrinsic refers to fundamental nature or property. It is certainly intrinsic to have sex, but children? That's quite a stretch

Click to expand...

A stretch eh? Sure it is? Please.. Humans have sex, and produce children. If it isn't intrinsic, then there would be no humans..

Concern #3: "Presumptive that when men and women 'bond [have sex], they produce children" is not entirely true

Click to expand...

Sure, not entirely, but then it wouldn't be presumptive now would it?

Concern #4: You haven't given any reason why those that "don't" or "can't" procreate should be included in marriage if they are heterosexual couples, and excluded if they are homosexual.

Click to expand...

I have no argument for this, other than we presume they will, if they can't then, so be it. One thing we do know, homosexuals can't, as condition of their nature, produce children.

And yet, your position is not shared by everyone, nor is it morally suspect to say that one is for marriage equality. No, this is an excellent example of subjectivity, as not everyone would concur with your moral belief, nor is there any universal appeal to wrongness here

Click to expand...

Then what is objective? Why would it need to be shared by everyone? It is a fact that what I claim is true. Whether you agree of Judge Walker agrees is immaterial to my claim.

Re-read what you wrote - you believe that "homosexual parenting" is "no worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful...that said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting". What the heck? If homosexual parenting was no better than a harmful heterosexual parenting, wouldn't that be EVERY reason for you to oppose it?

Click to expand...

Right you are. That didn't come out right. Of course it's better than a dysfunctional heterosexual couple.

My apologies.


Tim-

digsbe said:

My argument was that it's biologically impossible for two men/two women to conceive a child... There are obvious differences between the hetero and homosexual unions. the relationships are not the same, nor should they be recognized as the same. We lost the prop 8 trial because a bias gay judge ruled illogically.

Click to expand...

And it's impossible for infertile couples to biologically produce a child, yet they get married. And it doesn't stop there. The elderly get married as well. But if your argument is that biological impossibility for child rearing means that we can allow for heterosexual couples to marry despite the infertility while homosexual couples cannot, then you gotta get on the witness stand and offer up something other than opinion. For all your words about homosexuals being different, how it's impossible for same sex couples to make babies (not true thanks to the wonders of medicine, but i'll allow it), and how you fervently oppose same sex couples access to the same privilege we enjoy as heterosexuals under the tidy word 'marriage', neither you nor anyone on your side of the argument has been able to provide any peer reviewed, unbiased scientific or psychiatric studies supporting your position that they could use in that court of law - and believe me, they tried. You claim that you lost because of a biased judge, yet what was he to do when you couldn't provide not a single scientific study backing up your case? Should he have simply ignored the science and ruled in your favor?

In any case, good luck. You're gonna need it.

digsbe said:

The wording is specific, and I can take it to mean (like I stated) that abortion should be illegal. It clearly says you can't deny a person life, liberty, privileges, etc. I believe that applies to fetuses as they are unborn human people. By the same application of the clause abortion should be struck down.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but there's a conflict. Since the mother is an adult, and one could construe that forcing her to have a child is denying her liberty here to make the decision, then this Amendment can be interpreted in a different manner than the way you did. Unfortunately with your anti gay-marriage argument, there is no interpretation - the wording is quite literal. You may complain that the trial wasn't fair, or that the science shouldn't be used because it doesn't support your religious viewpoint, or whatever reason you want to complain about. My argument is about the literal wording of the Amendment, and why you lost in a court of law.

Next time, get better lawyers.

CriticalThought said:

Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with due process, which means life, liberty, or property. It just so happens that marriage deals with all three. It has nothing to do with procreation. The government has historically supported marriage because it provides stable homes for children. That stability comes from the sharing of life, liberty, and property between two consenting adults in a harmonious relationship. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well.

Now I can't spell it out any better for you. If you want waste your time by using your own definition of "fundamental" rather than the legal definition, then have at it. I've tried to improve your understanding of Constitutional law so that you could at least coherently debate the topic, but I probably might as well have been trying to educate a wall.

Click to expand...

This "wall" is calling you out. Simply because life, liberty, and property are fundamental does not make them the definiton for fundamental. Here's a clue for you. Ask yourself what makes life fundamental, what makes liberty fundamental, and what makes property fundamental, and you're there. The answer is illuminating..

Tim-

CriticalThought said:

It all boils down to the fact that you have no idea what "fundamental right" means in the Constitutional sense.

Click to expand...

Of course I do, that's why I'm pestering you.

Tim-

Hicup said:

Singularity - Answered already but again. When men make laws they typically review the standards, and the application of such laws. All possible contingencies are considered. When marriage laws were defined, and encoded into US law, they did not ever suspect that the question of pro creative capacity would ever be a question, nor necessarily an exclusion to marriage. But what makes marriage fundamental is exactly the procreative qualities marriage imparts on the state. The state benefits from heterosexual marriage by way of the intrinsic qualities heterosexuals bring to the table.

Click to expand...

No, this still has not offered an adequate reason why heterosexual couples who happen to be infertile should still be allowed the include themselves into a procreation-centric defense of marriage, while same sex couples are disallowed. Actually, check that. I went back and read it a few times, and I can find no reason. So, where does the actual justification for exclusion come in? Because I addressed every issue you posted, and I see nothing that would hold up as ironclad under scrutiny. In this post, you mentioned 'procreative qualities' that marriage imparts on the state. Very well, what procreative qualities do infertile heterosexual couples offer that homosexuals do not? Or the elderly, for that matter? In addition, name a few of these intrinsic qualities that ALL heterosexuals bring to the table (please note, if one of them is "the ability to procreate", elaborate on why infertile heterosexual couples should still be allowed inclusion while homosexual couples are not).

Hicup said:

A stretch eh? Sure it is? Please.. Humans have sex, and produce children. If it isn't intrinsic, then there would be no humans..

Click to expand...

And yet, humans have sex, and produce no children, too. The desire for sex may be intrinsic, but the desire for children? Again, that's a stretch.

Hicup said:

Then what is objective? Why would it need to be shared by everyone? It is a fact that what I claim is true. Whether you agree of Judge Walker agrees is immaterial to my claim.

Click to expand...

You may certainly believe that morally, same sex couples should not be married. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an objective viewpoint, as it could be laced with personal bias or strong opinions. And since there are plenty of folks who believe that same sex marriage is not morally suspect, then voila! Here comes the subjectivity!

Hicup said:

This "wall" is calling you out. Simply because life, liberty, and property are fundamental does not make them the definiton for fundamental. Here's a clue for you. Ask yourself what makes life fundamental, what makes liberty fundamental, and what makes property fundamental, and you're there. The answer is illuminating.

Click to expand...

Your calling me out by asking philosophical questions?

Meh, you lack even a basic understanding of Constitution law. You don't know what Due Process is. You don't know what a fundamental right is.

The Supreme Court defined marraige as a fundamental right. Case closed. If you don't like it, then get a Federal Constitutional Amendment passed to eliminate marriage.

The state has shown no interest in pormoting procreation. You haven't even provided a rational justification for promoting procreation over a couple's abilty to provide a stable home.

What this comes down to, is you have no Constitutional argument, no rational argument, and not even a semblance of a human argument, as to why same sex couples should be deneid the life, liberty, and property, inherent in marriage. You wish to deny fundamental rights based solely on their sex, without any justification that could pass the scrutiny test. That is sad and it demonstrates that what this really is about is that you don't want to accept same sex relationships as equal to opposite sex relationships, and you will stubbornly distort your own logic to justify it.

Hicup said:

Of course I do, that's why I'm pestering you.

Tim-

Click to expand...

You clearly don't.

And it's impossible for infertile couples to biologically produce a child, yet they get married. And it doesn't stop there. The elderly get married as well. But if your argument is that biological impossibility for child rearing means that we can allow for heterosexual couples to marry despite the infertility while homosexual couples cannot, then you gotta get on the witness stand and offer up something other than opinion. For all your words about homosexuals being different, how it's impossible for same sex couples to make babies (not true thanks to the wonders of medicine, but i'll allow it), and how you fervently oppose same sex couples access to the same privilege we enjoy as heterosexuals under the tidy word 'marriage', neither you nor anyone on your side of the argument has been able to provide any peer reviewed, unbiased scientific or psychiatric studies supporting your position that they could use in that court of law - and believe me, they tried. You claim that you lost because of a biased judge, yet what was he to do when you couldn't provide not a single scientific study backing up your case? Should he have simply ignored the science and ruled in your favor?

Click to expand...

There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

Tim-

Hicup said:

There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

Tim-

Click to expand...

It is incredibly sad that after you openly admitted that you did not read the 80 findings of fact in the ruling, that you now criticize the science without actually knowing anything about it.

You have no credibility on this topic, whatsoever.

In fact, the two expert witnesses that Protect Marriage offered up to support Prop 8, actually provided some of the strongest evidence to bring it down.

Hicup said:

There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

Tim-

Click to expand...

Well, according to the lawyers who tried the case, the judge that overturned prop 8, the expert witnesses called to testimony, and the social scientific studies presented in court, there was. And then i'd say that you and them apparently have a disagreement on the issue. I'm not sure what you or I can do about reversing that decision, but if you want to try, I wish you good luck.

As for myself, i'm content.

Singularity -

No, this still has not offered an adequate reason why heterosexual couples who happen to be infertile should still be allowed the include themselves into a procreation-centric defense of marriage, while same sex couples are disallowed. Actually, check that. I went back and read it a few times, and I can find no reason. So, where does the actual justification for exclusion come in? Because I addressed every issue you posted, and I see nothing that would hold up as ironclad under scrutiny. In this post, you mentioned 'procreative qualities' that marriage imparts on the state. Very well, what procreative qualities do infertile heterosexual couples offer that homosexuals do not? Or the elderly, for that matter? In addition, name a few of these intrinsic qualities that ALL heterosexuals bring to the table (please note, if one of them is "the ability to procreate", elaborate on why infertile heterosexual couples should still be allowed inclusion while homosexual couples are not).

Click to expand...

This is the question the court needs to answer. Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others? I say yes, what "they" say when it all comes to fruition is what's important.

And yet, humans have sex, and produce no children, too. The desire for sex may be intrinsic, but the desire for children? Again, that's a stretch

Click to expand...

I don't think it is. I think the opposite is the exception, and the "stretch" if you will.

You may certainly believe that morally, same sex couples should not be married. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an objective viewpoint, as it could be laced with personal bias or strong opinions. And since there are plenty of folks who believe that same sex marriage is not morally suspect, then voila! Here comes the subjectivity!

Click to expand...

Truth isn't subjective, even if one cannot convince others that what they speak is the truth, subjective it does not become simply because not everyone agrees on what is the truth.

Tim-

CriticalThought said:

It is incredibly sad that after you openly admitted that you did not read the 80 findings of fact in the ruling, that you now criticize the science without actually knowing anything about it.

You have no credibility on this topic, whatsoever.

In fact, the two expert witnesses that Protect Marriage offered up to support Prop 8, actually provided some of the strongest evidence to bring it down.

Click to expand...

Uh huh, so where is the science, CT? Have any?

Tim-

Singularity said:

Well, according to the lawyers who tried the case, the judge that overturned prop 8, the expert witnesses called to testimony, and the social scientific studies presented in court, there was. And then i'd say that you and them apparently have a disagreement on the issue. I'm not sure what you or I can do about reversing that decision, but if you want to try, I wish you good luck.

As for myself, i'm content.

Click to expand...

Ah, you mean the social scientific science presented.. Don't you abhor the "subjective", Singularity? I mean, isn't that what you just accused me off? Show me some science, I mean real science. None was presented as fact, and unfortunately Walker took some of it as such.



Tim-

Hicup said:

Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others?

Click to expand...

I would absolutely love it if you could provide some sort of explaination as to why procreation should be considered first and foremost when it comes to marriage. Obviously this is your opinion, but what possible rational explaination can you use to justify it?

Hicup said:

Uh huh, so where is the science, CT? Have any?

Tim-

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Here is Walker's ruling.

California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

He cites every study of relevance and the expert witness testimony.

Bring up whichever studies you want to contest. We can talk about each and every one of them if you want.

Hicup said:

Singularity -

This is the question the court needs to answer. Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others? I say yes, what "they" say when it all comes to fruition is what's important.

Click to expand...

So, now it's a question that the court needs to answer? What happened to the position you so vehemently defended a few pages back? And what about your elaboration - when do I get to see it?

I'm not belittling your argument - far from it. I think the arguments that you and the others against same sex marriage put forth are crucial to the workings of our great republic, and while I disagree with you all on the issue, these arguments nevertheless need to be addressed. The fact of the matter is that there are many questions that folks have about the ramifications of the legality of same sex marriage, and they deserve to be answered. As for myself, I think there is enough evidence to proceed with legalization, and I would very much like to see same sex marriage the law of the land.

I imagine you and I will continue this debate for a while to come, either in this thread or any other that pops up on the issue.

CriticalThought said:

I would absolutely love it if you could provide some sort of explaination as to why procreation should be considered first and foremost when it comes to marriage. Obviously this is your opinion, but what possible rational explaination can you use to justify it?

Click to expand...

I have... And yes it is my opinion.


Tim-

Singularity said:

So, now it's a question that the court needs to answer? What happened to the position you so vehemently defended a few pages back? And what about your elaboration - when do I get to see it?

I'm not belittling your argument - far from it. I think the arguments that you and the others against same sex marriage put forth are crucial to the workings of our great republic, and while I disagree with you all on the issue, these arguments nevertheless need to be addressed. The fact of the matter is that there are many questions that folks have about the ramifications of the legality of same sex marriage, and they deserve to be answered. As for myself, I think there is enough evidence to proceed with legalization, and I would very much like to see same sex marriage the law of the land.

I imagine you and I will continue this debate for a while to come, either in this thread or any other that pops up on the issue.

Click to expand...

I suspect we will clash from time to time, however, I find your demeanor to be positiive, and I respect your opinon on the matter. I thought you presented yourself very well. I just happen to disagree. We will see how it turns out.


Tim-

CriticalThought said:

Absolutely.

Here is Walker's ruling.

California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

He cites every study of relevance and the expert witness testimony.

Bring up whichever studies you want to contest. We can talk about each and every one of them if you want.

Click to expand...

I could but I won't. I consider phycology, and psychiatry to be "science-light". I have successfully argued with Redress on many of her parenting studies, and so on and so forth. I do not deny the homosexual capacity to succesfully raise children in healthy happy homes. However, I do reserve my judgenment until really good studies come out, ones where apples are compared to apples, and not oranges.


Tim-

Hicup said:

I could but I won't. I consider phycology, and psychiatry to be "science-light". I have successfully argued with Redress on many of her parenting studies, and so on and so forth. I do not deny the homosexual capacity to succesfully raise children in healthy happy homes. However, I do reserve my judgenment until really good studies come out, ones where apples are compared to apples, and not oranges.


Tim-

Click to expand...

That is perfectly fair. In fact, I wish you exercised such critical thinking in all your views. Then we probably wouldn't have to debate 3 pages on the legal definition of a "fundamental right".

Also, if you had been less lazy and actually read Walker's ruling, then I think you would have been more informed on the topic and could have used those same critical thinking skills to find other areas to reserve judgment.

Deuce said:

Not to mention that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia.

Click to expand...

That's true...but there was no need to even debate that because his entire underlying premise is wrong.

Singularity said:

And isn't that what was argued in court, the right of the individual to marry his/her same sex partner?

Click to expand...

Whether it was or wasn't, it isn't what you're arguing here.

Regarding your second question, I would answer with one of my own. Why would someone get married to a partner that he/she was not sexually attracted to nowadays? Do you know of such examples personally? And given that it's a possibility, would those be healthy marriages, you think?

Click to expand...

People marry for many reasons, as is pointed out every time someone says that the point of marriage is children.

People may marry for convenience. People may marry because they want money. People may marry because they just want companionship. Or they want security. In none of those cases is sexual attraction necessary.

Nor is a "healthy" marriage necessary for the right to marry be exercised, especially considering that the definition of "health" in a marriage may and does vary widely from person to person.

So, I ask again -- why is sexuality a necessary component of marriage?

Hicup - What does science have to do with it? If a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, it is none of the government's damn business.