Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[toobfreak]

If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.

Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.

I'm all for interracial marriage. My father was an Austrian Pole and my mother a German. We also had one black and one white cat. I'm even for equality of the felines. They both ate the same cat food. Neither had to eat from the back of the can.

I see so you think that the issue of interracial marriage was a big fucking joke too.
OK

Not at all. Just you. You have the NERVE to start a thread attacking the Right calling everyone a bigot and obsessed with marriage when it turns out the only obsessed bigot on marriage here is YOU.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?

Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?

 

[OldLady]

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home. It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs. Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else

Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either. At least not here. So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.

1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?

2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?

I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around. All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.

Is that based on real information from the time or is that just revealing the focus of the researchers in question?


if the men of the group, don't know which kids are theirs, you don't think that would discourage the sharing of resources?


I give a lot of thought to the inheritance I am going to be leaving my child. If it was less than 10 per cent change it is my child, I don't see myself feeling that way.

Not everyone used to think of children as being their property.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?

Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?

Only if it turns you on.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state? Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?

Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?

Only if it turns you on.

I'm ignoring your juvenile delinquent stupidity . Get outa my face

 

[toobfreak]

Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves? Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!

Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?

Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?

Only if it turns you on.

I'm ignoring your juvenile delinquent stupidity . Get outa my face

I bet you'd LOVE me in your face. All ten inches of me!

 

[Correll]

But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

 

[Correll]

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

 

[Correll]

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home. It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs. Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else

Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either. At least not here. So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.

1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?

2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?

I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around. All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.

Is that based on real information from the time or is that just revealing the focus of the researchers in question?


if the men of the group, don't know which kids are theirs, you don't think that would discourage the sharing of resources?


I give a lot of thought to the inheritance I am going to be leaving my child. If it was less than 10 per cent change it is my child, I don't see myself feeling that way.

Not everyone used to think of children as being their property.

Being more willing to provide resources to your own children, instead of to children that might possibly be yours, is not "thinking of them as your property".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

Strict Scrutiny

A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. As articulated in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

The case of roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), which invalidated state laws that prohibited Abortion, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny. The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that this right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Based on these grounds, the Court applied strict scrutiny. The state of Texas sought to proscribe all abortions and claimed a compelling State Interest in protecting unborn human life. Though the Court acknowledged that this was a legitimate interest, it held that the interest does not become compelling until that point in pregnancy when the fetus becomes "viable" (capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). The Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but the Texas law was not narrowly tailored to achieve this objective. Therefore, the state did not meet its Burden of Proof and the law was held unconstitutional.

___________________________________________________________________

Bans on same sex marriage could not pass even the lowest level of scrutiny-a rational basis review

Levels Of Scrutiny In The Equal Protection Clause

 

[G.T.]

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

 

[G.T.]

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

Strict Scrutiny

A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex. As articulated in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives."

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

The case of roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), which invalidated state laws that prohibited Abortion, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny. The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that this right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Based on these grounds, the Court applied strict scrutiny. The state of Texas sought to proscribe all abortions and claimed a compelling State Interest in protecting unborn human life. Though the Court acknowledged that this was a legitimate interest, it held that the interest does not become compelling until that point in pregnancy when the fetus becomes "viable" (capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). The Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but the Texas law was not narrowly tailored to achieve this objective. Therefore, the state did not meet its Burden of Proof and the law was held unconstitutional.

He's the one yelling liberal this and liberal that and doesn't understand the concept of Liberty - thanks for posting that. Hopefully, he might read it and learn something.

 

[Correll]

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

....al.

And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.


Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?

 

[Correll]

Not why, how.


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - ....

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

 

[G.T.]

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - ....

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.

You're obfuscating, yet again.

The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.

No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.

You're unable to refute that.

 

[DGS49]

Sorry for not reading this entire thread, but I have a few thoughts on the issue.

Several decades ago, the USSC created a "Constitutional right of Privacy." There is no such right, and it is insidious. While sounding quite innocuous and even beneficial, it is undefinable, which leads to judicial mischief. That is to say, if people have an undefinable "right," then lawyers can make it include ANYTHING. Buggery, baby-killing, and now the biologically and culturally absurd institution called "gay marriage."

A legal change of this magnitude MUST be implemented by Constitutional Amendment AT THE STATE LEVEL. The Fed's have no powers in the area of marriage, and their interest in the institution is limited to how it affects taxes, and benefits conferred on married and/or single people. The Constitutional amendment process in each state ensures that this drastic change to the laws and culture is made formally and by more than a simple majority of the popular voters.

But in this country, it has been forced upon us by JUDICIAL DECREE, which is a legal abomination. And that judicial decree was based on the non-existent Constitutional Right of Privacy. In fact, if the same case were to come up today, it would be decided otherwise. But this is a classic case of the horse being out, making closing of the barn door irrelevant and pointless.

I have no problem with a State deciding formally to permit or sanction "gay marriage," but it is noteworthy that when the question came up to a popular vote before the USSC stepped in, IT LOST IN EVERY SINGLE STATE, including California.

It is really pointless arguing about it now.

 

[G.T.]

Sorry for not reading this entire thread, but I have a few thoughts on the issue.

Several decades ago, the USSC created a "Constitutional right of Privacy." There is no such right, and it is insidious. While sounding quite innocuous and even beneficial, it is undefinable, which leads to judicial mischief. That is to say, if people have an undefinable "right," then lawyers can make it include ANYTHING. Buggery, baby-killing, and now the biologically and culturally absurd institution called "gay marriage."

A legal change of this magnitude MUST be implemented by Constitutional Amendment AT THE STATE LEVEL. The Fed's have no powers in the area of marriage, and their interest in the institution is limited to how it affects taxes, and benefits conferred on married and/or single people. The Constitutional amendment process in each state ensures that this drastic change to the laws and culture is made formally and by more than a simple majority of the popular voters.

But in this country, it has been forced upon us by JUDICIAL DECREE, which is a legal abomination. And that judicial decree was based on the non-existent Constitutional Right of Privacy. In fact, if the same case were to come up today, it would be decided otherwise. But this is a classic case of the horse being out, making closing of the barn door irrelevant and pointless.

I have no problem with a State deciding formally to permit or sanction "gay marriage," but it is noteworthy that when the question came up to a popular vote before the USSC stepped in, IT LOST IN EVERY SINGLE STATE, including California.

It is really pointless arguing about it now.

The right to privacy and 6 million other rights DO exist, they're implied until argued and vetted otherwise...that's how freedom works - the State's just there to assure your freedom is maximized versus it (your freedom) imposing on someone else's(freedom).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

....al.

And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.


Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?

Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust

 

[Correll]

As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - ....

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.

You're obfuscating, yet again.

The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.

No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.

You're unable to refute that.

If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.

They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.

NEXT!

 

[Correll]

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

....al.

And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.


Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?

Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust

Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.


Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?