The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Battle Forum

Gay Marriage - Just Say No !!!!

This is the Battle Forum. It was setup for those threads and conversations that get out of hand - and turn into attacks, name calling and childish behavior. Users head here to hash out their differences. Please be warned before entering...
Forum rules
This is the BATTLE FORUM. A WARNING UP FRONT: ANYTHING GOES HERE!

Expect language and attacks from other members here. This place was setup for those threads that turned to personal attacks, name calling, and other immature behavior.

This is an unmoderated board, except by the site Administrator. There are NO THREATS OF VIOLENCE, BLATANT RACISM, or other ILLEGAL ACTIVITY! Other than that, this is a battle field - so enter and read at your own risk.

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:58 pm

greeney2 wrote:No, what I have said is the issue has been split down the middle both by the voters 51-49%, and by the court rulings. If the issue was as clear cut legally, 2 times the court rulings would not have been decided by one vote. In both of these 2 landmark rulings, each side of the argument has strong legal merit.


What is the strong legal merit of a ban against gay marriage? What is the strong legal merit of government getting involve in marriage anyway?

Oh and btw, do you think that the majority should be able to violate the rights of some people based on their sexual orientation?
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:30 pm

The fact that they voted in this manner, shows there are more sides to any issue than one, and why we have courts with odd numbers of justices. We have courts with 1,3,5,7 and 9 Justices or Judges in our system. Your view is one sided and your way of looking at it is from one agenda, however on 2 occasions, 7 judges saw it in another way, not from emotions but from sound legal letter of the laws. Which side prevails is no easy answer with many issues. That should not be to hard to understand that the laws may not be simple.

I'm sure the public record of each Justices rulings are easy to find. If you care that much for this issue, I would think you would have read it completely, but you don't care enough to read the others rulings content. I do not need to explain their position, this is their level of legal expertise, how the law is inturpeted and what rights prevail over others. That is why we have these courts, to decide when rights conflict, laws conflict, or public policy is discriminatory. As I said before, the mood of the courts, is swayed by liberal and conservative administrations who appoint Justices based on their Liberal or Conservative stance on issues and the laws.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:43 pm

So you can't articulate the strong legal position for a ban on gay marriage. That's what I figured.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:26 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8#Ruling

The dissenting judge, Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[202] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[202] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[202] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.



So Smith is not providing a strong legal reason for a ban on gay marriage. He's saying that gays are not worthy of special attention by the courts which is just his opinion.

The optimal partnership for raising children argument is quite flawed. One reason why is that if this principle were applied equally, any sterile person would be banned from marriage. One would have to get a sperm count checked and whatever they do for women to test their sterility before allowing marriage.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby DIss0n80r » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:38 pm

It's not right to stop people from getting married because they're sterile.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:48 pm

DIss0n80r wrote:It's not right to stop people from getting married because they're sterile.


Judge N. Randy Smith would logically have to throw sterile people under the same bus he puts gays under.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:50 pm

Why don't you have the same concern for the discrimination to hetrosexuals and civil unions?
greeney2
 
Posts: 9539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:43 pm

greeney2 wrote:Why don't you have the same concern for the discrimination to hetrosexuals and civil unions?


Still no strong legal reason for a ban on gay marriage, eh?

Well to answer your question, I'm unconcerned because heterosexuals can get married.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby En-Lugal » Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:34 pm

Not to be mean but most of my gay friends go through a thirty-year relationship in two weeks or less. Meaning, they have sex, say "I love you", move in together, break up, move out and fight over stuff. Followed by several more weeks of drama as all of the friends who see the now ex with someone else. :lol:

I say let em at it. Should be good revenue from all the marriage licenses and divorces. :twisted:
The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.
User avatar
En-Lugal
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:19 am

Postby greeney2 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:33 am

at1with0 wrote:Well to answer your question, I'm unconcerned because heterosexuals can get married.


That was the Supreme Court ruling in the first gay marriage case, where they ruled because of civil unions, gays were not discriminated against. Legally, civil unions has all the same rights as marriage.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to Battle Forum

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests