Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight at the General Forum; Originally Posted by texmaster Because a person's gender has nothing to do with homosexual preferences And that's relevant to? Since ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 12:31 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
Because a person's gender has nothing to do with homosexual preferences
And that's relevant to?

Quote:
Since you brought up gender I thought it important for you to see how an argument would actually look if it had facts behind it. The two genders are biologically engineered for procreation using heterosexual sex. Homosexuals have no biological argument
I didn't "bring up" gender, it's always been about gender. Marriage licenses don't ask for sexual preference, they ask for gender.

So what does procreation have to do with the price of rice in china?

Quote:
Yes we are and I am. Try to keep up with your own failed argument.

Since everyone has gender and you claim that is the basis for the right to marry, how can you exclude any age or number of people to get married when everyone has gender?
I don't deny anyone any such thing, nor do I argue against it. I have no issue with polygamy.

However, such marriages are not denied based on gender. If they were, you'd have a point. But as it is, you do not.

Try again.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 12:42 PM
texmaster's Avatar
Sic vis pacem parabellum
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,095
Thanks: 808
Thanked 388 Times in 241 Posts
Default Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
And that's relevant to?
your argument to allow state recognized homosexual marriage

Quote:
I didn't "bring up" gender, it's always been about gender.
LOL Wanna take another look at that sentence?

Quote:
Marriage licenses don't ask for sexual preference, they ask for gender.
Because everyone has gender yes. Men and women have gender. It also asks for age. Everyone has an age. It asks for height, everyone has height. It asks for race, everyone has race.

Quote:
So what does procreation have to do with the price of rice in china?
It supports a genetic link between heterosexual marriage further separating it from homosexual marriage

Quote:
I don't deny anyone any such thing, nor do I argue against it.
Actually thats exactly what you have been arguing.

Quote:
I have no issue with polygamy.
So you also have no issue with age then either because its been established children have gender too.

Quote:
However, such marriages are not denied based on gender. If they were, you'd have a point. But as it is, you do not.

Try again.
Marriage is not based on same sex gender. It is based on one man and one woman.

Try again
__________________
I'm so intolerant I'm not even tolerant of my own intolerance
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 12:46 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
your argument to allow state recognized homosexual marriage
How so?


Quote:
LOL Wanna take another look at that sentence?
I've no need. do you?


Quote:
It supports a genetic link between heterosexual marriage further separating it from homosexual marriage
What does procreation have to do with marriage?


Quote:
Actually thats exactly what you have been arguing.
No, I have not. Please show me where I've argued against polygamy.


Quote:
So you also have no issue with age then either because its been established children have gender too.
Is the marriage being denied due to gender?


Quote:
Marriage is not based on same sex gender. It is based on one man and one woman.

Try again
Yeah, that's kind of the whole issue, dear. It discriminates based on gender.

Are you just realizing this?
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 12:57 PM
texmaster's Avatar
Sic vis pacem parabellum
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,095
Thanks: 808
Thanked 388 Times in 241 Posts
Default Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
How so?
Because you argued that gender itself allows homosexual marriage. It doesn't and you cannot explain how it can.

Quote:
I've no need. do you?
Check it again. Who brought up gender as an argument in this thread? Me or you?

Quote:
What does procreation have to do with marriage?
As stated it supports a genetic link between heterosexuals further separating it from homosexuals as a basis for allowing state recognition of marriage

Quote:
No, I have not. Please show me where I've argued against polygamy.
That wasn't the reference. Either you are being dishonest intentionally or just not reading carefully. The reference was using gender as a basis to allow gay marriage

Quote:
Is the marriage being denied due to gender?
No because men can marry women and women can marry men. Both have gender.

Quote:
Yeah, that's kind of the whole issue, dear. It discriminates based on gender.

Are you just realizing this?
No it does not dear because everyone has gender. It does not discriminate since it allows genders to marry. Just not the same gender.

You can't claim it discriminates against gender when genders are allowed to marry

and since you dishonestly ran from this question I'll ask it again since you use gender to argue for gay marriage:

So you also have no issue with age then either because its been established children have gender too right?

Please answer it this time
__________________
I'm so intolerant I'm not even tolerant of my own intolerance
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 01:07 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
Because you argued that gender itself allows homosexual marriage. It doesn't and you cannot explain how it can.
Umm. No.

The govt allows or disallows legally recognized marriages. Gender doesn't allow or disallow legally recognized marriages. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Are you drunk, perhaps?

What I've said is that the current marriage restrictions discriminate based on gender.


Quote:
Check it again. Who brought up gender as an argument in this thread? Me or you?
The argument has always been about gender. You know, SAME SEX marriage? Get it?

Quote:
As stated it supports a genetic link between heterosexuals further separating it from homosexuals as a basis for allowing state recognition of marriage
Unless you're arguing that only people who can and will procreate with each other be allowed to marry, then what you're saying bears no relevance whatsoever to this conversation.


Quote:
That wasn't the reference. Either you are being dishonest intentionally or just not reading carefully. The reference was using gender as a basis to allow gay marriage
I'm not using gender as a basis for allowing anything. I'm using the current blatant gender discrimination as a basis for the unconstitutionality of the current restrictions.

You're the one bringing **** into the argument that has no bearing on it. I said I didn't have an issue with polygamy, but if you wanted to discuss it, start another thread. And, I also said that the restriction against polygamy isn't based on gender. Thus, continuing to bring it up in the face of the facts I present to you regarding the current marriage restrictions being gender discriminatory is just a weak diversionary tactic that has obviously confused you.


Quote:
No because men can marry women and women can marry men. Both have gender.
That's right. A man can marry a woman, and yet I can't marry a woman. Discrimination.

Quote:
No it does not dear because everyone has gender. It does not discriminate since it allows genders to marry. Just not the same gender.
A man can marry a woman, and yet I can't marry a woman. Discrimination.

Try again. Eventually maybe you'll find an argument that has merit, but I've never seen one. You can hope, though.

Quote:
You can't claim it discriminates against gender when genders are allowed to marry

and since you dishonestly ran from this question I'll ask it again since you use gender to argue for gay marriage:

So you also have no issue with age then either because its been established children have gender too right?

Please answer it this time
Are child marriages being denied based on gender? If not, then the question is irrelevant to the conversation.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2011, 04:29 PM
Idealogically Promiscuous's Avatar
Do I Look Like a Bitch?
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,087
Thanks: 4,153
Thanked 6,673 Times in 3,956 Posts
Default Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I see, minors are not a protected class. That is nonsense on its face.
Then you should have no problem showing where minors are a protected class under some antidiscrimination legislation such as labor, fair housing, and EEO laws. I will wait with bated breath for your demonstration.

Quote:
The law differentiates, discriminates in your terminology, between a minor and an adult based on an arbitrary age standard allowing adults to dictate in purportedly the minors best interest.
No argument with that. Why? Because minors aren't a protected class, rendering your point moot and irrelevant.

Quote:
States have differing laws as to the age a person can enter into marriage, some allow marriage as young as 14, according to your logic states that require a minimum age greater than this discriminate.
States are permitted to discriminate on this basis because...oh yeah....there's that protected class issue again. Minors aren't protected as it is assumed their parents maintain responsibility for them.

Quote:
Fortunately our system of laws allows what you label discrimination even if it impacts a protected class.
Demonstrate or reference in any law where minors are a protected class and you will have a point.

Quote:
It isn't so much the literacy test for voting discriminates against the illiterate, it's that everyone who votes has to pass a literacy test. By your standard there is no discrimination since all are required to pass the same test. Literacy tests for voting have been found to be unConstitutional but your construct would sanction them.
Personally, I have no issue wth civics and literacy tests for voting but you are grossly simplifying a larger issue. Literacy tests were first introduced in conjunction with and as part and parcel of Jim Crow laws. They were introduced specifically to target a protected class (race, ethnicity). They were inherently discriminating and had the sole purpose of limiting access to government by poor blacks and the lower classes.

A bit of knowledge of history goes a long way.

What I find so hilarious is that you people insist upon obtuse references out of context and with no knowledge of the jurisprudence behind the examples you reference. It's like dealing with monkey flinging **** against the wall hoping it splatters into the form of a masterpiece.

Quote:
The headlong rush to force gay marriage validation ignores the function of law in our society.
Actually, it takes into full account the function of law in our society and no matter how much caterwauling, teeth gnashing, and **** flinging you do, it's never gonna make that false statement true.


Quote:
But the law doesn't give equal treatment to all behaviors. It penalizes some and stands mute on others. It gives a uniform standard for judging each individual or in the case of marriage the two parties. The test in marriage being the union of 1 man and 1 woman. All marriages are evaluated equally, subjected to the same test, therefore by your definition there is no discrimination.
Actually, they aren't all evaluated equally and the definition of marriage has been mutable throughout this country's history. The crux of the matter is that it is a civil institution and as such cannot make any requisites or restrictions based on "moral disapproval" (Kansas: State v Limon) nor can the state place penalties upon consensual sexual behaviors between adults (Lawrence v Texas). Sharp v Perez also stated that marriage is a matter of choice and not restriction by the state and that where choice is given to one class and not another, there is discrimination.

Quote:
California has civil unions and anti-discrimination laws for gays in place. So, your access to government argument is false.
WRONG!

You fall back on the separate but equal argument without realizing it. Lunch counters for blacks and lunch counters for whites (along with bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc) were proven unconstitutional. And California does not have civil unions...they have domestic partnerships. And the two are nowhere near equal.

Quote:
However, Judge Walker in his infinite majesty had to issue a finding of fact that marriage was so special these laws could not substitute for it,
Because they can't as proven in Knight v Schwartzenneger.

Quote:
clearly social engineering from the bench.
You say "social engineering from the bench" and the court says "ruling in form with current jurisprudence".

Quote:
The law targets all manner of specific groups, such as minors. That is its function.
Actually, kind sir, civil law's function is to maintain peace and preservation of social order. It does have intent (read: the capacity to "target") toward groups. The law sets forth guidelines for how individuals within the society should interact and it prescribes penalties for breaching this code of conduct.

Hobbes. Check him out sometime. Most of our founders were familiar with him.

Quote:
The Constitution begins with the words "We the People" in out sized print. The People, the source of all government power, express their will with their votes. The plain fact is the voters expressed their will in passing Prop 8. If voting is mob rule as you proclaim, then none of our laws are the product of anything other than mob rule.
And there we go with the convenient oversimplification again. First of all, the preamble is not part of the legal code of the constitution. It is a declaration of intent and it points the reader to the body of the constitution, which subsequently prescribes a rule of law tailored as a Constitutional Democratic Republic. What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that we elect our officials to govern us but they do so within set parameters laid out in the Constitution. No matter what law or ruling gets passed, if it is deemed to be counter to the provisions of the supreme law of the land, then it is struck down by a body of men appointed to make exactly those decisions.

Don't like it? Tough titty. That's the law. That's the way it's always been done and, unless you can muster up 2/3's of the senate and house and 3/4's of all the states to help you pass an amendment to overturn the original articles framing our government in the constitution, that's the way it is ALWAYS GOING TO BE DONE.

Good luck with that.

Quote:
A judge's powers are not unfettered in our system. He/she doesn't have the authority to engage in social engineering as Judge Walker did with his Prop 8 ruling.
If Walker had actually done any such thing, I am sure there are plenty of advocates on the various bars and benches that could have arranged for censure or disbarring him. Feel free to add that task to your bucket list. Put it right under "get amendment passed to overturn article 3 of the Constitution".

Let me know how that works out for you.

Quote:
The sort of judicial supremacy advocated by gay marriage proponents is akin to that of a theocracy such as might be found under Sharia.
Ummm...what? First of all, it's Constitutional supremacy guarded by the courts. In case you haven't read the constitution...that's the function of the courts. Check it out sometime. Further, there is no religious motivation behind support of gay marriage. Can't say the same for the opposition so I am not even sure where you thought you were going with that invalid comparison.

Quote:
But, our Constitutional form of government rejects it.
Tell that to the courts because right now...they kinda disagree with you.
__________________
Say "what" one mo' goddamned time. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 03-28-2011, 01:14 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,612
Thanks: 10,111
Thanked 15,290 Times in 9,270 Posts
Post Re: Appeals panel refuses to allow same-sex marriages during court fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
Actually the first names that come to mind would be Scalia, Roberts and Alito. I would think these qualify as "legal experts".
Scalia I am familiar with him having a skewed view on the 14th amendment.* That guy thinks that some examples of torture may not violate the 8th amendment, so I really wouldn't be including him as a great resource.
I would be fascinated to see you substantiate your claim regarding Roberts and Alita on disagreeing with 14th amendment interpretation, without moving the goal-posts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
How many court rullings, legal opinions, and peer reviewed papers must you be shown before you admit your wrong and stop using Loving. Loving is not applicable to same sex marriage or polygamy or mariages between relatives, or any other aspect other than race. Your insistance on constantly bringing up irrelevent case law is just another example of your close-minded, emotional bias.
First of all, don't move the goal-posts...
You claimed "Also, the interpretation is moot since no states interest is needed to ban a type of marriage"
Loving v Virginia PROVES you false in that claim.
Miscegenation laws BANNED A TYPE OF MARRIAGE.
Loving v Virginia PROVED that a legitimate states interest WAS required.* By a UNANIMOUS vote.
You can argue about whether "gay marriage" requires this or that, but what you just did is the equivalent of claiming a square has three sides.
*
We're back to you refusing to understand geometry, but insisting on contradicting me in calculus.
(And for the record, it's laughable for you to claim "How many ..." when I haven't seen you provide ANY of that here...
I honestly don't recall if you have EVER proven that "legitimate state interests" are not required for gay marriage cases.)
*
You fail to comprehend that we are using the TEST utilized in Loving on a different issue.
Say that John had an advancement test he was going to take.
All we are saying is that THE SAME TEST should be applied to*Gary to see if*Gary can pass it as well...
Maybe Gary can pass it.* Maybe Gary cannot pass it.
But where you fail is insisting that the same test CANNOT apply to Gary at all...
*
You accuse me of being closed-minded.* But it is you in refusing to try to apply the same test that is closed minded.
Somebody could have taken your closed minded approach and shut-down the case for interracial marriage before it was even brought to SCOTUS.* Just say *14th amendment doesn't apply* and pretend that is all that is necessary.
THAT is the closed minded aspect.
*
As for "emotional bias", that's just you trying to move the conversation away from a debate on the issue to trying to make me the focus of discussion.
*

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
Sure, but not here. Don't want to divert the thread. I would be happy to discuss differing opinions of justices about the 14th in another thread.
I've seen this crap play out time and time again.
You say this, and then you fail to follow through.
It's obviously a ploy to drop the issue, pretending you have an argument while posing no argument.
*
Start the thread and I'll refute you.
If you do start the thread, take care to make sure you don't move the goal-posts cause you know I'll just drag you right back to the original issue...

*
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
Like I said, I haven't seen a argument that holds up to scrutiny.
Bullspit!
Speak the truth.
You haven't seen an argument THAT YOU WILL AGREE WITH.
What you fail to comprehend (again, refusing to admit geometry) is that this argument exists AND IS VALID.
If you don't think violating child abandonment laws has a legitimate state interest, then you're lost.
*
Your refusal to admit to geometry (validity of this argument) is not a counter-argument.
*
*
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
People leaving or being forced out of a religious sect is a freedom of religion/ freedom of association issue.
Wow.
KIDS ARE KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOME, and rather than admit the validity of that legitimate state interest you try to pretend it just about "People leaving or being forced out of a religious sect" ????
*
*
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
Your income example doesn't hold water since before adding another person to a contract (like marriage), both parties already involved would have to consent.
Show me the legislation that requires all party agreement...
It doesn't exist.
Don't try to make up the rules.* (whoops.* too late)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
I didn't answer your question because I was hoping you would see the absurdity of it on your own. I'm not making an argument "against gay marriage"...
Do you understand what an "analogy" is?
I am showing an ANALOGY whereby your answer to my question exposes the double-standard your position presents.
*
You are pretending that not preventing incestuous sex is a weakness of preventing incestuous marriage.
It isn't.
*And my questions PROVE the fallacy of your position.
You refuse to answer cause we both know you can't answer without exposing your previous position as ridiculous.
*
By your logic, does banning gay marriage mean that gays can't have sex?
If it doesn't, does that weaken the argument against gay marriage?

*
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
I'm making the argument that bans on same-sex marriage are not unconstitutional under the COTUS.
And this proves my point at how you're trying to abandon your previous argument.
You're trying to move the goal-posts and ignore the point of my inquiry.
*
And this is how these conversations keep going with you.
You keep trying to change the issue refusing to address the flaw in your argument, cause in a couple posts you'll try to pretend*that the commentary is about something else...
*

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
One can enjoy the debate and still be detatched.
Seriously dude.
You are NOT detached.
There are MULTIPLE issues that abound, yet you HABITUALLY FIXATE on gay issues.
You are not detached.*
*
*
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch907
The closest thing I have to a dog in the fight is the fact that, except for a few specific examples, I believe the federal gov't shouldnt recognize any marriage, including mine.
How rarely you mention this "position" just emphasizes how fixated you are on gay issues.
*
If somebody were to argue INCESSANTLY about how interracial marriage should not occur...
... and then rarely turns around and try to pretend he doesn't have bias because he thinks no marriage should have governmental recognition...
That wouldn't stop people from recognizing the person's true bias.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
allow, appeals, court, during, fight, marriages, panel, refuses, samesex

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0