Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

[Cecilie1200]

8th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled that Loving v. Virginia applies to same-sex marriage (see OP). Thus far no court has ruled that it doesn't. Next.

Show me what court case give the right to same sex marriage?

Ok Reb...go to the OP...see how the "8th Circuit Court of Appeals" and "9th Circuit Court of Appeals" are highlighted? That means they are links. Try clicking on them

If you're so slavishly committed to letting the Supreme Court do all your thinking for you, why are you even bothering to ask anyone else what they think? Just so you can say, "Ah ha! But the Supreme Court disagrees, so shut the **** up?"

Please try to understand that the difference here is that YOU are arguing what the Supreme Court says the law is (today), and those you disagree with are arguing what the law ACTUALLY READS, irregardless of the Supreme Court's whim du jour. It's basically the difference between "the Supreme Court says that slavery is okay" and "the Supreme Court is wrong and slavery should be done away with": one blihndly goes along with whatever he's told, and the other thinks for himself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just for further evidence on question #3 it's worth noting that the guy making this argument and asking these questions has a Romney icon in his signature.

California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?

No, but it does prove you are an idiot about the difference between a California Republican and a Texas Republican.

And the difference between "Republican" and "conservative", apparently.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have some sort of evidence showing that liberals in California or other states voted to ban gay marriage? Exit poll data or something similar? If not, your third question is kind of silly.

Are you going to suggest that Proposition 8 passed with 52.24% of the vote in a state where 31.4% of the population are Republicans? But fine....36% of Democrats voted to ban gay marriage according to the exit polls.

Are you going to suggest that Michigan State Proposal -04-02 passed with 59% of the vote in Michigan? But fine....45% of Democrats voted in favor of MI-04-02

Oregon....33.3% Republican but Ballot Measure 36 passed with 56.63% of the vote. To their credit liberals weren't nearly as bad in Oregon. Only 28% voted in favor of the ban.

So it seems to me that bans on gay marriage in those states sure got a hell of a lot of liberal support.

That is the part that many supporters don't like to admit. There are plenty of people who support same sex marriage, but when push comes to shove they get a case of NIMBY and want it to happen somewhere else.

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. Hey, knock yourself out. What I have a problem with is official government sanction and recognition of those relationships, because I see no compelling societal reason to do so.

And no, because they want it is not a compelling societal reason. Nor do these fallacious premises of "I have a right" to government sanction or "it's unequal treatment" impress me in the slightest. They represent the most puerile-quality attempts at logic in the political scene short of "unviable tissue mass" and "get your laws off of my body . . . just as soon as you buy me birth control".

Finally, let me just say that if someone is asking, "Why can't I ever get an answer to this question?" and then the question requires the responder to accept that person's particular biased worldview as correct, please understand that THAT is why he can't get an answer: because he can't hear anyone but himself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Imagine how stupid you look NOW.

 

[BDBoop]

Imagine how stupid you look NOW.

Shoot the messenger? You have nothing, so you attack me.

 

[hortysir]

[

That is the part that many supporters don't like to admit. There are plenty of people who support same sex marriage, but when push comes to shove they get a case of NIMBY and want it to happen somewhere else.

I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. Hey, knock yourself out. What I have a problem with is official government sanction and recognition of those relationships, because I see no compelling societal reason to do so.

And no, because they want it is not a compelling societal reason. Nor do these fallacious premises of "I have a right" to government sanction or "it's unequal treatment" impress me in the slightest. They represent the most puerile-quality attempts at logic in the political scene short of "unviable tissue mass" and "get your laws off of my body . . . just as soon as you buy me birth control".

Finally, let me just say that if someone is asking, "Why can't I ever get an answer to this question?" and then the question requires the responder to accept that person's particular biased worldview as correct, please understand that THAT is why he can't get an answer: because he can't hear anyone but himself.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sadly, throughout our history we have had the majority start by slamming the minority's rights through the ballot box. Happily, throughout our history, we've also seen the majority eventually come around (sometimes kicking and screaming) to including said minority in equal civil rights. We saw this with unlanded citizens, black men, women, hispanics, native americans. Looking at the voting TRENDS, it is only a matter of time. (Let us remember that in some states, none of the civil rights for blacks were gained by the vote...had to be done by judicial fiat. Let us also remember that the ERA failed when voted on)

Exactly. That's why wanting it to be voted on 'by the people' is so senseless. People will vote emotions Every. Time. Not logic, Not law.

"Vote the law"? What the hell does that mean? That you're supposed to go to the ballot and say, "This is what the law says now, so that means I have to continue it"? When they people are voting, they are MAKING the law. Christ, every time I think you sound as stupid as you possibly can, you post again and prove me wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

You do know you keep claiming to practice the law for a living, and you still routinely lose your arguments, right?

 

[Dante]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.
...

...
...


1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

1) Some arguments say tradition. Is the tradition an overriding social interest that the courts should rule justifies discrimination?

2) Some conservatives favor granting marriage rights to gays. Conservative Christians, and many progressive Christians favor biblical arguments, or moral arguments, or even yet again, tradition.

3) A majority of liberals favor granting gays marriage rights. It is antithetic to liberalism to oppose that. Many leftists and progressives are moralistic and homophobic, no big surprise there --- human nature.

You are using the term liberals in place of the terms Democrats, and Progressives. Shame on you and your utter ignorance, you ******* imbecile. You're a bigger fool than you are a poor intellect, and that is saying much

now **** off troll

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

<snip>

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

<snip>

There is no legitimate way to answer your questions, as you have successfully restricted the answers to suite your own preconceived answer.

One can't honestly discuss marriage without delving into the history of the practice and the religious undertones.

So, you'll never get answers to your questions except your own.

That's how the law works.

No, that's how LAWYERS work, which is why they're about as trusted and respected as used-car salesmen.

And that's the ones who can actually make a coherent argument that can't be demolished by a bunch of people on the Internet, unlike you.

 

[BDBoop]

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

You do know you keep claiming to practice the law for a living, and you still routinely lose your arguments, right?

L2read? I don't practice law. I was referring to another poster. Christ, but you're slow on the uptake.

 

[hortysir]

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

You do know you keep claiming to practice the law for a living, and you still routinely lose your arguments, right?

Methinks you're getting Avatars confused.

Jillian's the lawyer....never heard that about Betty...

 

[BDBoop]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

Bolded, red, etc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

Bolded, red, etc.

And I said

Invite his ass here

 

[Ravi]

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

You seem to be pro civil union, so tell me, if a gay couple gets a legal civil union AND finds a church that will marry them in a religious ceremony (and some will do just that) are they then ALLOWED to claim they are married? Or will you still object?

I would not object to them being granted the same privileges and benefits as a married couple.

But just because a church that I don't follow calls them polka-dotted, that doesn't change my definition of Caucasian or Latino.

Thanks for the non answer.

 

[Peach]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.
...

...
...


1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

1) Some arguments say tradition. Is the tradition an overriding social interest that the courts should rule justifies discrimination?

2) Some conservatives favor granting marriage rights to gays. Conservative Christians, and many progressive Christians favor biblical arguments, or moral arguments, or even yet again, tradition.

3) A majority of liberals favor granting gays marriage rights. It is antithetic to liberalism to oppose that. Many leftists and progressives are moralistic and homophobic, no big surprise there --- human nature.

You are using the term liberals in place of the terms Democrats, and Progressives. Shame on you and your utter ignorance, you ******* imbecile. You're a bigger fool than you are a poor intellect, and that is saying much

now **** off troll

Moderates too can support marriage equality Dante. Insult at your pleasure.

 

[BDBoop]

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

Bolded, red, etc.

And I said

Invite his ass here

So?

 

[PredFan]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

None that I can find.

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

Not all conswervatives oppose gay marriage. In fact I would put to you that Conservatives are not against it. Social Conservatives are.

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

Indeed!

 

[theHawk]

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

There has been no denying any of their rights. A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman....and that is according to the dictionary. A gay individual has the exact same rights as a single hetrosexual. Also, there is the fact that "gay marriage" is not "banned" anywhere in the United States....it is simply not recognized by most states. Just because society refuses to recognize and condone gay marriage, does not mean gays cannot get married.

For example, here is the actual text of the so-called "gay marriage ban" of North Carolina:

Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts

So as you can see, the state will only recognize marriages between a man and woman. It does not criminalize "gay marriages" at all.

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

It is answered satisfactorily.

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

Liberals lie about everything just so they can get re-elected. If they actually ran on what they believe in they would never get elected in the first place.

 

[daws101]

either you believe in equality or you don't!
things don't get any more simple than that!