CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Prop 8 Overturned!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prop 8 Overturned! - Page 3

post #101 of 145
8/11/10 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
I think there is absolutely no utility in labeling your beliefs "free market" if you recognize the need for external regulation of the market. It's like saying that you have stateless society/pure anarchist ideals but recognize the utility of things like governments, armies, and jails. They;re both cases of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
So sliding scales don't exist in your world, Cuch?
Reply
post #102 of 145
8/11/10 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post
So sliding scales don't exist in your world, Cuch?
I believe you can coherently take moderate approaches to a great many things, I just don't think market anarchism is one of them. You are either willing to accept and commit to the consequences of your ideas or you aren't. You don't get to get something for nothing. A "moderate" market anarchist is just what less pretentious people call a "selfish dick."
Reply
post #103 of 145
8/12/10 at 12:56pm
Glenn Beck: Gay Marriage NOT Threat To America

Quote:
"Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" O'Reilly asked.

"A threat to the country? No, I don't," Beck said, laughing, adding mockingly, "Will the gays come and get us?"

Beck quoted Thomas Jefferson: "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"
Reply
post #104 of 145
8/12/10 at 12:57pm
Who the hell is that and what have they done to Glenn Beck?
Reply
post #105 of 145
8/16/10 at 7:59pm
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO – Same-sex weddings in California are on hold indefinitely after a federal appeals court blocked the unions Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in a case that many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.
Fuckin'... damnit.
Reply
post #106 of 145
8/17/10 at 2:10am
Had a guy I go to school with at the bar (he was sober) ask me when we're gonna start allowing polygamy, incest, and bestiality now. He puts homosexuality on the same moral level as that. The forces of tolerance are fighting against people like this.
Reply
post #107 of 145
8/17/10 at 2:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
Had a guy I go to school with at the bar (he was sober) ask me when we're gonna start allowing polygamy, incest, and bestiality now. He puts homosexuality on the same moral level as that. The forces of tolerance are fighting against people like this.
Out of curiosity, how did you reply to this neanderthal exactly?
Reply
post #108 of 145
8/17/10 at 2:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Out of curiosity, how did you reply to this neanderthal exactly?
I told him that society has changed its view on homosexuality as a whole and he needs to adapt with the times. Plus the stigma attached to homosexuality is strictly based on religion and nothing more whereas incest has a stigma unrelated to religion as well as polygamy and bestiality.

I concluded with the notion that creating and enforcing laws with nothing more than religious dogma and no real scientific evidence to support its sanction cannot be a law at all because its arbitrary. A law must have some sort of valid reason attached to it. Any law condemning homosexual behavior has no valid reason. Plus, religion is a bullshit template to go off of anyway.
Reply
post #109 of 145
8/17/10 at 2:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
I told him that society has changed its view on homosexuality as a whole and he needs to adapt with the times. Plus the stigma attached to homosexuality is strictly based on religion and nothing more whereas incest has a stigma unrelated to religion as well as polygamy and bestiality.
You're a law student. Wouldn't it have been way easier and more brief to simply point out the fact that this is basically a matter of letting two consenting adults enter a contractual agreement regardless of identity politics whereas the other cases involve classes of life that cannot give consent or enter legally binding agreements, namely children and irrational locomotive organisms?
Reply
post #110 of 145
8/17/10 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
You're a law student. Wouldn't it have been way easier and more brief to simply point out the fact that this is basically a matter of letting two consenting adults enter a contractual agreement regardless of identity politics whereas the other cases involve classes of life that cannot give consent or enter legally binding agreements, namely children and irrational locomotive organisms?
I brought up the consenting adults thing as well, but he countered that incest can be just as consensual depending on the situation. I told him I don't really know of a situation where incest could be consensual as it's mostly child - adult relations or something stemming from that that would make it not consensual at all in the end (Mackenzie Phillips situation).
Reply
post #111 of 145
8/17/10 at 2:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
You're a law student. Wouldn't it have been way easier and more brief to simply point out the fact that this is basically a matter of letting two consenting adults enter a contractual agreement regardless of identity politics whereas the other cases involve classes of life that cannot give consent or enter legally binding agreements, namely children and irrational locomotive organisms?
Out of curiosity, what's the legal argument against two adult cousins or bro/sis marrying each other?

I'm just asking because in those cases, they're not children and I wonder how one would get around the "two consenting adults" angle.
Reply
post #112 of 145
8/17/10 at 3:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
Out of curiosity, what's the legal argument against two adult cousins or bro/sis marrying each other?

I'm just asking because in those cases, they're not children and I wonder how one would get around the "two consenting adults" angle.
Incest is an unsustainable social model and could eventually lead to unnatural development of children coming from such model. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. The state has a legitimate interest in regulating the ability for consenting adults from having incestuous relations with one another. As Judge Walker appropriately decided - there are no compelling interests in banning gays from marrying.
Reply
post #113 of 145
8/17/10 at 3:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
I brought up the consenting adults thing as well, but he countered that incest can be just as consensual depending on the situation. I told him I don't really know of a situation where incest could be consensual as it's mostly child - adult relations or something stemming from that that would make it not consensual at all in the end (Mackenzie Phillips situation).
Those instances can be easily and effectively argued against. First, most forms of incest--the kind where the people grew up together and did things like change the other's diapers--are pathological, which takes care of the consent argument. Second, even the cases that aren't pathological demonstrate a clear public interest in barring them: they are, by nature, prime candidates for birth defects that actively harm the community's financial and health services interests.

As for polygamy, limiting the number of partners that can enter that arrangement is rational and fair. If no such limit existed, people would just get married for the legal and financial benefits willy nilly. If you want the benefits, you agree to certain conditions.
Reply
post #114 of 145
8/17/10 at 3:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
Incest is an unsustainable social model and could eventually lead to unnatural development of children coming from such model. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. The state has a legitimate interest in regulating the ability for consenting adults from having incestuous relations with one another. As Judge Walker appropriately decided - there are no compelling interests in banning gays from marrying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Those instances can be easily and effectively argued against. First, most forms of incest--the kind where the people grew up together and did things like change the other's diapers--are pathological, which takes care of the consent argument. Second, even the cases that aren't pathological demonstrate a clear public interest in barring them: they are, by nature, prime candidates for birth defects that actively harm the community's financial and health services interests.

As for polygamy, limiting the number of partners that can enter that arrangement is rational and fair. If no such limit existed, people would just get married for the legal and financial benefits willy nilly. If you want the benefits, you agree to certain conditions.
Thanks to both!
Reply
post #115 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
I told him that society has changed its view on homosexuality as a whole and he needs to adapt with the times. Plus the stigma attached to homosexuality is strictly based on religion and nothing more whereas incest has a stigma unrelated to religion as well as polygamy and bestiality.

I concluded with the notion that creating and enforcing laws with nothing more than religious dogma and no real scientific evidence to support its sanction cannot be a law at all because its arbitrary. A law must have some sort of valid reason attached to it. Any law condemning homosexual behavior has no valid reason. Plus, religion is a bullshit template to go off of anyway.
Then why can't two brothers marry each other? or two sisters? that is still incest.
Reply
post #116 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Then why can't two brothers marry each other? or two sisters? that is still incest.
You shoulda kept scrolling down.
Reply
post #117 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
You shoulda kept scrolling down.
You should try reading.
Quote:
Second, even the cases that aren't pathological demonstrate a clear public interest in barring them: they are, by nature, prime candidates for birth defects that actively harm the community's financial and health services interests.
Two brothers can't have children, thus no birth defects.
Reply
post #118 of 145
8/17/10 at 7:48am
Two brothers can't get married because marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Sheesh, keep up.
Reply
post #119 of 145
8/17/10 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Then why can't two brothers marry each other? or two sisters? that is still incest.
It's disgusting, that's why. The state is granted the power to marry its residents. The state also, under the 10th Amendment, has certain police powers including regulating the morals of its citizens. The problem with this whole argument is whether homosexuality is a proper reason to prevent the marriage of two consenting adults. It gets kinda complicated constitutionally speaking, but basically citizens of every state have the right to marry. That right to marry cannot be limited by the state unless that state has a compelling interest to do so. As Judge Walker put it, there is no interest compelling enough to prevent gays from marrying. I can't speak what the Supreme Court would say about two sisters or two brothers getting married, but to me the state certainly has a compelling interest in not marrying an incestuous couple.
Reply
post #120 of 145
8/17/10 at 10:15am
Blood relatives also have most of the legal benefits conferred by marriage without having to enter into that contractual relationship, so there isn't much of a point in marrying them, either.
Reply
post #121 of 145
8/17/10 at 10:19am
Isn't incest illegal? Seems like granting legal status (marriage) to a criminal act is a big reason why it wouldn't be allowed. Homosexuality is not illegal, so no such obstacle exists.
Reply
post #122 of 145
8/17/10 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Blood relatives also have most of the legal benefits conferred by marriage without having to enter into that contractual relationship, so there isn't much of a point in marrying them, either.
Exactly - The Court has ruled on quite a few cases as to define what a family is or is not in the eyes of the law, especially in zoning cases.

As for Richard's point, it makes for serious problems in certain states. This is from Wikipedia, but I think it's still quite valid.

Quote:
In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[19] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[19], Ohio only targets parental figures[19], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[19] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[19] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[19]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws.
Reply
post #123 of 145
8/17/10 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
It's disgusting, that's why. The state is granted the power to marry its residents. The state also, under the 10th Amendment, has certain police powers including regulating the morals of its citizens. The problem with this whole argument is whether homosexuality is a proper reason to prevent the marriage of two consenting adults. It gets kinda complicated constitutionally speaking, but basically citizens of every state have the right to marry. That right to marry cannot be limited by the state unless that state has a compelling interest to do so. As Judge Walker put it, there is no interest compelling enough to prevent gays from marrying. I can't speak what the Supreme Court would say about two sisters or two brothers getting married, but to me the state certainly has a compelling interest in not marrying an incestuous couple.
1) Sodomy was illegal still in many states, until a federal court ruling (2003) (had to look this up, eta)

2) many people find homosexuality disgusting.

3) A power of attorney could transfer rights to non-relatives (i.e your same sex lover) granting them the same rights as a blood relative. So, you could argue that same sex couples don't need to marry based on that argument.

If it's ok for gays to marry, why is it not ok for two brothers to marry.
Reply
post #124 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:31pm
Why would two brothers get married?
Reply
post #125 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:33pm
The "slippery slope" argument always allows the arguer to tip his hand and reveal his own bizarre fantasies.
Reply
post #126 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:44pm
If Snaieke wants to punch his brother's mudhole, who are we to argue? Go balls deep in the brotherfucker.
Reply
post #127 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
2) many people find homosexuality disgusting.
Frankly, if anybody should be glad that laws aren't based on how disgusting someone is, it's you.
Reply
post #128 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Frankly, if anybody should be glad that laws aren't based on how disgusting someone is, it's you.
Snaieke's looking for the loophole, Jacob. And when I say loophole I really mean his brother's mouth.
Reply
post #129 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Then why can't two brothers marry each other? or two sisters? that is still incest.
If this is the best counter that you can muster then may I suggest next time you consider not even showing up?
Reply
post #130 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:56pm
If someone can make an argument that the state has no rational basis for opposing brother on brother marriage, then they can get married. Congratulations, mazel tov, and all that.

My next question is addressed to the rest of you: why are you engaging this guy in conversation?
Reply
post #131 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:57pm
Snaieke just wishes his brother was black, so they could go just a few years further back in time and break both anti-miscegenation and anti-gay marriage laws. Ooh, the thrill!
Reply
post #132 of 145
8/17/10 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
My next question is addressed to the rest of you: why are you engaging this guy in conversation?
Soley for our own entertainment, obviously.
Reply
post #133 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Soley for our own entertainment, obviously.
Well, have at it and all that. No judgment on my end. Personally, I'd rather roll around in duck feces than actually try to have a substantive conversation with that stultifying retard.

But Jacob...you know there's a thread about juggalos and Tila Tequila, right? I mean, if you're looking for an engaging conversation...
Reply
post #134 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
But Jacob...you know there's a thread about juggalos and Tila Tequila, right? I mean, if you're looking for an engaging conversation...
WHAT? The hell you say! <raises torch and pitchfork> "To the Gossip thread!"
Reply
post #135 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLassiter View Post
Why would two brothers get married?
Well, if you can assume a bro and a sis can commit incest and maybe want to get married, and mount a legal defense, I guess there's gotta be a way to get around the possibility of two brothers, both gay, both committing incest, and both wanting to get married. If they had to write up a legal reason why a human can't marry a goat ("irrational locomotive organisms"), this shouldn't be out of the question.

I'm actually curious how, legally, this can be argued against. Mostly because I wouldn't put it past a conservative judge to bring it up.
Reply
post #136 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:12pm
Isn't the intention of marriage to form a legal contract with the state? People who are already related to each other don't need these protections. Gay people aren't looking for legal recognition so they can rub it in idiot conservative's faces (that's just a happy byproduct). They want financial, medical, insurance, and other legal protections commonly granted by the state to two people who are not related.

Or something like that, smarter people than me can clarify that.
Reply
post #137 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
3) A power of attorney could transfer rights to non-relatives (i.e your same sex lover) granting them the same rights as a blood relative. So, you could argue that same sex couples don't need to marry based on that argument.
You could argue NOBODY needs to get married based on that argument.
Reply
post #138 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
You could argue NOBODY needs to get married based on that argument.
Precisely. Like the judge who recently overturned the ban said, it's basically people arguing that heterosexual love/marriage is intrinsically and objectivley superior to homosexual love/marriage.

Maybe conservatives can come up with a way to prove just how much two people love each other, and we'll base marriages on that. OR, if heterosexual marriage is just so goddamn important and crucial to the state, we can start forcing single people to marry no later than age 25, for the good of the nation.
Reply
post #139 of 145
8/17/10 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
If they had to write up a legal reason why a human can't marry a goat ("irrational locomotive organisms"), this shouldn't be out of the question.
They didn't need to invent any new terms to cover that. Marriage is, among other things, a contract, and there are a number of established rules as to who can legally enter into one, requiring first that you are a sane human adult. You can't marry a goat for the same reason you can't enter into a mortage with toucan, trade ethanol futures with a newborn, buy insurance from the Bering Sea, or bind the color brown to non-compete clause. Also why your toaster cannot, as yet, qualify for a boat loan.

As for brotherfucking, incest laws have a separate basis and history than sodomy laws. Which is a concept that seems to come easier to judges, whose primary job requirement is intellectual honesty, than ragingly partisan internet commenters. Go figure.
Reply
post #140 of 145
8/17/10 at 7:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Precisely. Like the judge who recently overturned the ban said, it's basically people arguing that heterosexual love/marriage is intrinsically and objectivley superior to homosexual love/marriage.

Maybe conservatives can come up with a way to prove just how much two people love each other, and we'll base marriages on that. OR, if heterosexual marriage is just so goddamn important and crucial to the state, we can start forcing single people to marry no later than age 25, for the good of the nation.
And make adultery an illegal and punishable act, since they like to trot out the ol' "sanctity of marriage" line of reasoning.
Reply
post #141 of 145
8/17/10 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
Well, if you can assume a bro and a sis can commit incest and maybe want to get married, and mount a legal defense, I guess there's gotta be a way to get around the possibility of two brothers, both gay, both committing incest, and both wanting to get married. If they had to write up a legal reason why a human can't marry a goat ("irrational locomotive organisms"), this shouldn't be out of the question.

I'm actually curious how, legally, this can be argued against. Mostly because I wouldn't put it past a conservative judge to bring it up.
Exactly. These are the types of discussions I get into with people.

You see... I'm for gay marriage, I don't care if you want to marry your brother or your sister and I don't care if you have multiple wives (or husbands). This is also why I'm pro-abortion. I believe your body and your life is yours and others should have no say so in it. Tattoo's, piercing's, plastic surgery, sex change.. as long as you are not infringing upon another's life or well being (e.g. having unprotected sex while knowingly having a disease) I say have at it. That doesn't mean *I* will do these things, just that I don't care if others do it. I'm all about freedom, in every form.
Reply
post #142 of 145
8/17/10 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
You see... I'm for gay marriage.
I just love to engage in the basest form of GOTCHA politics! I WIN! I WIN!
Reply
post #143 of 145
8/17/10 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Exactly. These are the types of discussions I get into with people.
You must be very popular.
Reply
post #144 of 145
8/30/10 at 2:26pm
Listen to how quiet this crowd gets. It's an old video but it really got me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s30ZK...layer_embedded
Reply
post #145 of 145
8/30/10 at 4:46pm
That silent shot of the back of the speaker with the lights shining right onto him... that said everything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Prop 8 Overturned!