Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Anima, got never answered me. What does same sex marriage hurt anybody?

It doesn't harm anyone, regardless of what people might say. And how they might justify their prejudice and dislike.

Nobody is harmed, not society, not societal structures, not liberal democracies, nobody. Giving equal rights to people who were unjustifiably prevented from having those rights is not a detriment.

[Cato]

Anima,
You can give up the procreative centric definition of marriage anytime now. The only reason it was ever considered was because it was the only possible defense for religiously motivated discrimination. 

Your argument that forms of non-procreative sex aren't prohibited simply because of an enforcement issue is fucking ridiculous...Lawrence.

Lawrence V. Texas is arguing it under a right to privacy issue by which the states do not have a compelling interests.  We had moved on from the legal argument at the request of robovalue.

However, if you wish to go back to the legal argument the procreative definition is still applicable and will end up being the default when Obergfell V. Hodges gets overruled.  As the ruling is now it will lead to any number of problems which we had discussed earlier.  (I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)

Alas the natural law supersedes even the ethical law, though the ethical law may endeavor to argue sex is not for the procreation of offspring the teleological nature of sex is for the procreation of offspring.  Again we may argue that sex is used for different things including pleasure and torture, but we would be foolish to say such was the teleological natural purpose of the thing.

You drug us back to an issue of legality by claiming the absurd idea that there's a compelling argument for the prohibition of other forms of non-procreative sex but that it's not taken up because it would be impossible to enforce. I simply referenced Lawrence to show that the idea would be immediately unconstitutional for reasons other than utility of resources.

I think it's time you got a little more specific with your teleological argument. Much of your conversation smacks of the naturalistic fallacy. If you are using an internal teleological theory to answer the biological question of 'why do we fuck', then who cares? You can't immediately get from here to the idea that we shouldn't be fucking for other reasons. I'm certainly hoping your not trying to invoke some as yet unspoken external platonic teleology where an outside agent is assigning some value. Human hands didn't evolve to manipulate aircraft controls, tennis rackets, guitars or keyboards; will you be consistent and clamor on for the prohibition of such activity based on your idea of a teleological nature?

[Ace]

Wait Anima back up some with the Dignity

Hmmmm Dignity, and here I was think that the issue was about having the right to marry. So can it be said that the ruling of the court in Obergefell v. Hodges was not rule on the topic of marriage its self? But that one has a right to have Dignity if married?!!

And that is why I say not to marriage period.(All Marriage)

Like I said before, marriage has now become and elitist group with the giving of certain benefits, and rights that non-married people don't get!
And how doses this make all people equal? It sound like a the creation of a second class to me.
Married dignity and Non-married no dignity

F- all marriage period..!!!

Holy Shit Hmmmmm

[NoraBrimstone]

Yes, but unmarried people are happier, so it all evens out.

[Ace]

Lawrence V. Texas is arguing it under a right to privacy issue by which the states do not have a compelling interests.  We had moved on from the legal argument at the request of robovalue.

However, if you wish to go back to the legal argument the procreative definition is still applicable and will end up being the default when Obergfell V. Hodges gets overruled.  As the ruling is now it will lead to any number of problems which we had discussed earlier.  (I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)

Alas the natural law supersedes even the ethical law, though the ethical law may endeavor to argue sex is not for the procreation of offspring the teleological nature of sex is for the procreation of offspring.  Again we may argue that sex is used for different things including pleasure and torture, but we would be foolish to say such was the teleological natural purpose of the thing.

You drug us back to an issue of legality by claiming the absurd idea that there's a compelling argument for the prohibition of other forms of non-procreative sex but that it's not taken up because it would be impossible to enforce. I simply referenced Lawrence to show that the idea would be immediately unconstitutional for reasons other than utility of resources.

I think it's time you got a little more specific with your teleological argument. Much of your conversation smacks of the naturalistic fallacy. If you are using an internal teleological theory to answer the biological question of 'why do we fuck', then who cares? You can't immediately get from here to the idea that we shouldn't be fucking for other reasons. I'm certainly hoping your not trying to invoke some as yet unspoken external platonic teleology where an outside agent is assigning some value. Human hands didn't evolve to manipulate aircraft controls, tennis rackets, guitars or keyboards; will you be consistent and clamor on for the prohibition of such activity based on your idea of a teleological nature?

But Cato wait, wait, you brought in Lawrence first, Anima just responded to your comment.

(Remember this is just for fun, No one is debating to alter life and the world. (SHHHH easy,easy)

[TheRealJoeFish]

Ha ha!! You are going to argue legal realism based on the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges?! Did you read the ruling??

I read Obergefell front to back twice. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "legal realism." I didn't mean whatever gleaming understanding of the law that you (or anyone else) believes is enshrined in the Constitution. I meant this: "The way judges actually make constitutional decisions, rather than the way we think they should." And how do Judges make Constitutional decisions? They take what they believe in, and then find the portion of the Constitution that they believe supports them.

This week, Justice Kennedy found 14th Amendment support for the proposition that a ban on gay marriage is Unconstitutional. Maybe this changes the previously held meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. So? Justice Scalia, this week, found 14th Amendment support for the proposition that the words "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another" are unconstitutionally vague. You know what Justice Alito said about that? The majority is "transforming vagueness doctrine." One man's intelligent, informed interpretation of the Constitution is another man's, as you say, "complete[] ignor[ing of] the law as it has always been understood."

Obergefell ignored Washington v. Glucksberg? My left foot it did. Glucksberg says "fundamental rights are those deeply rooted in the nation's history." What was the fundamental right here? Marriage. Deeply rooted in the nation's history? Sure. If you want to define the right at issue as "gay marriage" as distinct from heterosexual marriage, then, sure, Glucksberg looks like it makes the case more interesting. But that's just absolute semantic torture; we don't think of "the right for children to drive a car" as separate from "the right of adults to drive a car," we think of "the right to drive a car" that is then revoked for certain classes of people. (Note that the state can revoke it from children because they don't have the capacity to drive a car, and they can revoke it from other people because it's *not a fundamental right*.)

Ignored the intentions of the ratification of the amendment? Pshaw. So did Loving v. Virginia.

And coming up with, as you say, the "BS argument to dignity," or, as the Majority says, "liberties extend[ing]to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs"? Yeah, that's clearly not part of the law, which is why the Court didn't cite any cases as precedent. Except Eisenstadt and Griswold (right to possess contraceptives). And Loving. And Lawrence. But, surely, you don't disagree with Lawrence, right?

To this I would say go to law school, read all the cases, and marvel at the slippery slope that always happens.  Hell marvel at the slippery slope of Lawrence V Texas that lead to United States V. Windsor and to Obergefell V. Hodges all under the argument of Dignity!

Oh. Perhaps you do...

And, by the way, regarding "going to law school and reading all the cases?" I have.  I did. And I have no idea what you mean by "the slippery slope that always happens." 

Do you mean 32 years of Lochner jurisprudence?  Pfft.  Here's the revisionist, textbook version of what happened: The Supreme Court in Lochner, faced with a decision to 1) exercise Judicial restraint and defer to the state legislatures or 2) to grant itself more power and allow itself to review laws for prudence rather than Constitutionality, decided the latter, effectively overriding the separation of powers and taking a broad view of the 14th Amendment that allowed the Court to do almost anything it wanted, invalidating laws for, as you mention, "not being in the public good".

Which is great if you're running for office or trying to look like a Constitutional Scholar of the highest order.

The "legal realist" perspective?

The Supreme Court in Lochner, faced with a confrontation between States' Police Power and Personal Right to Contract, both of which were 1) clearly enshrined in the Constitution and 2) clearly not unlimited, made a judgment call and determined that the latter was more important than the former in most cases.  Why?  Not because the power-hungry Court wanted to usurp the legislature, but because most people thought that "self-determination is good!" and "how dare the state tell us what we can and can't agree to?!" and "those guys chose to work 14 hours a day for 12 cents an hour" and "other pro-business, anti-worker rhetoric!".  Thirty-two years later, the US had gone through the Great Depression, the country had realized through the media and important events that the freedom to contract is awesome until it results in a million people wondering if they're going to die of the black lung from working in the coal mines or from hunger because the coal mines fired them because they got the black lung and couldn't work anymore, and FDR was in office, and - what a surprise - the Court saw its position from before as barbaric, took a more liberal view than it had a few decades ago (again, not a shock, because the average American was more liberal in 1938 than in 1905), and decided that it had balanced its Constitutional provisions incorrectly.

So, what does that mean with Obergefell? It means that the Court's interpretation of the Constitution has always changed, and the fact that the court 100 years ago didn't mean for a ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional doesn't mean that it isn't.

Obviously, one can get a real good kick out of the fact that Lochner was a right-wing triumph, a federal-law-based curb on the power of the state governments' power to limit personal freedom.

Obergefell's another case where it looks like the federal government is curbing a state's power to limit personal freedom. Except, this time, the conservatives are siding with the states because they happen to agree with the states.

Listen: if you're one of the maybe 1,000 people in this country who really truly gets the Constitution, has a perfectly coherent and consistent framework of Constitutional jurisprudence, and wouldn't need to make a judgment call to interpret some of its more lofty decisions, then all the power to you. But that's not how it works in the real world. What happens in the real world is that this thing written 240 (text), or 150 (XIV), or however many years ago consists of a few hundred words set down on paper, and those words have to be called on to apply to everything that the government can possibly be involved with. And to do that, men and women bring in their knowledge, intelligence, and preconceptions and do the best they can.

What does the Constitution say? That's a very, very difficult question.
Whose job is it to tell us what it says? The Supreme Court of the United States.
What does the Supreme Court say the Constitution says? That states cannot deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Those who are so quick to jump on the "rule of law" bandwagon tend to only support the rule of law as applied to laws they agree with. In doing so, they become little mini-versions of the second-guessers they accuse the Supreme Court of being.

[Iroscato]

Iroscato

I agree with you fully and dislike the method I am using to replay. I have requested help before on how to format correctly but, have receive no answer to my request. So until I can figure this out we are stuck with my shitty method.

I am all ears who ever wishes to aid me on this issue.

Sigh...public service time again I guess.
What exactly are you struggling with when posting? The best way to quote for example is using the quote button (looks like a speech bubble) in the toolbar. So say you want to quote part of my post - copy the desired text, click the quote button and paste it between the [quote ] and the [/quote ].
If you want to attribute the text to a poster, type = and then their name inside the first bracket with speech marks, like so (ignore the spaces) - [quote = "Iroscato"] and then close it the normal way with [/quote ]. You can of course type the quote tags in manually if you're using a phone or just prefer doing it yourself. Observe.

I have a massive willy

And you can split it as many times as you like provided you open and close the quote properly.

but it's absolutely rammed with STD's

and you can keep on going and going, copying and pasting different parts of a post inside quote tags...

and has tried to strangle me to death at least five times.

There, easy. Oh and for fuck's sake, keep to one colour in your posts, much easier on the eyes.

You're welcome

[Regina]

Tangent, but I want to rant.

Just seen this queen on instagram bashing gay pride marchers who dressed up as Jesus and made satire. "Disrespecting religion" this man says.

Gay people who do this shit wtf. You are aware this religion would have you burned alive if it still had power, right? If you think "disrespecting religion" is on par with burning people alive your sense of reality is skewed. This is not a gay-friendly religion that loves us, it hates us and is un-apologetic about it. Fuck their "feelings", and get a sense of humour ffs, religious satire can be hilarious.

I think the gay community needs an official pejorative term for these sell-out gays, who would throw other gays under the bus to pander to religious sensitivities. These "gays for Palestine" and "ex-gay" types who must have been smoking something. You're not gay people I want in my social circle, and you deserve to be called the fuck out for your bullshit and stigmatised.

[Cato]

I think the gay community needs an official pejorative term for these sell-out gays, who would throw other gays under the bus to pander to religious sensitivities. These "gays for Palestine" and "ex-gay" types who must have been smoking something. You're not gay people I want in my social circle, and you deserve to be called the fuck out for your bullshit and stigmatised.

Karen Armstrong is a good name for this purpose.

[Ace]

Iroscato

I agree with you fully and dislike the method I am using to replay. I have requested help before on how to format correctly but, have receive no answer to my request. So until I can figure this out we are stuck with my shitty method.

I am all ears who ever wishes to aid me on this issue.

Sigh...public service time again I guess.
What exactly are you struggling with when posting? The best way to quote for example is using the quote button (looks like a speech bubble) in the toolbar. So say you want to quote part of my post - copy the desired text, click the quote button and paste it between the

and the [/quote ].
If you want to attribute the text to a poster, type = and then their name inside the first bracket with speech marks, like so (ignore the spaces) -

and then close it the normal way with [/quote ]. You can of course type the quote tags in manually if you're using a phone or just prefer doing it yourself. Observe.

I have a massive willy

And you can split it as many times as you like provided you open and close the quote properly.

but it's absolutely rammed with STD's

and you can keep on going and going, copying and pasting different parts of a post inside quote tags...

and has tried to strangle me to death at least five times.

There, easy. Oh and for fuck's sake, keep to one colour in your posts, much easier on the eyes.

You're welcome

  Finally so much need help.

I thank you so much! Truly, you were the only person who responded to my request for aid. To take time out of your very busy day and help a total stranger is always heart warming. Not being able to read English well, (it is not my first language) can make understanding and translating the word very difficult. Of course having a learning disability may also be a contributing factor too.  And people say humanity is dead!! Hahaha  

However, in reality I have sadly witness and, even had it done to me, people be very curl to another like nothing. I don't know what has happened lately. It seems recently seem to just lack such willingness, care, and respect for other people who are truly in need.  

Trust me,  I have seen some really bad reactions by people who have been asked to help. Many make another just feel like shit by act like they have been ask  to do such a terrible task. They roll there eyes, make loud sighing sound, grumbler under their breath and talk down to another to the person when they are giving "help"  to another.
It makes one want to tell the bothered "helper," Hey, never freaking mind. Damn Sorry For Asking!"  

Thank you again, hopefully I got this and all will be good.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you  

---

Tangent, but I want to rant.

Just seen this queen on instagram bashing gay pride marchers who dressed up as Jesus and made satire. "Disrespecting religion" this man says.

Gay people who do this shit wtf. You are aware this religion would have you burned alive if it still had power, right? If you think "disrespecting religion" is on par with burning people alive your sense of reality is skewed. This is not a gay-friendly religion that loves us, it hates us and is un-apologetic about it. Fuck their "feelings", and get a sense of humour ffs, religious satire can be hilarious.

I think the gay community needs an official pejorative term for these sell-out gays, who would throw other gays under the bus to pander to religious sensitivities. These "gays for Palestine" and "ex-gay" types who must have been smoking something. You're not gay people I want in my social circle, and you deserve to be called the fuck out for your bullshit and stigmatised.

   HAHAHA Good One. . . Hey many time taking about stuff is more productive then getting physical.

I get it, I get it.
So if you wish, let us be marry and rant away.

However, I don't really know about  other, "sell-out gays, who would throw other gays under the bus to pander to religious sensitivities." Can you explain? Or is it that a type of  individuals who are all religious and stuff and push it on another? I may be misreading you post, sorry for that.



DRAM AHEAD

You know everyone's own personal ideas, hope, or faith is very powerful to them.

I remember back in the day when I was a little shit, there was this very young and very good look gay couple, ( what a fucking wast for humanity!!!!) jking

I remember them because of their very soft personality, they were getting conformed into the Catholic Church. Sadly one of them was dying of AIDS ( It was HELL to see the physical change that shit dose to the body. It happened so fast!!!!!. The guy was already naturally thin, so when the sickness attacked it was like looking a the most thinnest stick ever!!)

For the first time I saw how hard such a life can really be for some dying of AIDS and dairying to believe in a God. It was his wish to be confirmed into the church.

-Sadly he did not live very long when I was introduce to him. Truly, I never got to really know them. After his death his partner just diapered. Never saw him again.

"Grant to all the souls of the departed eternal rest, oh Lord." And may perpetual light shine upon them!!"

Sorry just started think about this when I read your post. Interesting Hmmm