Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama Urges SCOTUS to Strike Down Prop 8

tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:47:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Took long enough
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.
My work here is, finally, done.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:38:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.

Why shouldn't administrations be allowed to influence the court? It's not unconstitutional.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:50:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:38:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.

Why shouldn't administrations be allowed to influence the court? It's not unconstitutional.

Yes, but if an administration is projecting their morality/bias upon what is supposed to be an objective supreme court, that is bad for all of our freedoms.

Also, the gov't doesn't have the right to define marriage to start, and if they do, where is their sympathy for polygamous couples, and where is the tolerance for incest?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:53:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:50:05 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:38:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.

Why shouldn't administrations be allowed to influence the court? It's not unconstitutional.


Yes, but if an administration is projecting their morality/bias upon what is supposed to be an objective supreme court, that is bad for all of our freedoms.

I wonder if you said the same for Bush's amicus briefs.

Since when was the court objective?
Also, the gov't doesn't have the right to define marriage to start, and if they do, where is their sympathy for polygamous couples, and where is the tolerance for incest?
Both of those need to be tolerated as well, and the fight for marriage equality will start pushing for things.

I agree that government has no right to define marriage. That is precisely why Prop 8 needs to be struck down.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:54:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:53:40 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

I agree that government has no right to define marriage. That is precisely why Prop 8 needs to be struck down.

I agree.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 2:39:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:50:05 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:38:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.

Why shouldn't administrations be allowed to influence the court? It's not unconstitutional.


Yes, but if an administration is projecting their morality/bias upon what is supposed to be an objective supreme court, that is bad for all of our freedoms.

Also, the gov't doesn't have the right to define marriage to start, and if they do, where is their sympathy for polygamous couples, and where is the tolerance for incest?

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. Who cares if one branch of the federal government is bickering with another branch of the federal government? That's what they're supposed to do - checks and balances. The Executive Branch tries to influence The Legislative Branch all the time. Why is that OK, but it's not OK with the Judicial Branch, because in my estimation, the former is worse than the latter.

The issue here is that the federal government is trying to usurp the rights of the citizens of the Republic of California. Now, I happen to agree with this decision, or at least the intent of the decision as Prop 8 absolutely disgusts me, but I'm not sure if I'll be happy that the Supreme Court knocks it down, should they knock it down, given what this means to other laws passed in my state that the federal government doesn't agree with.

My hope is that the CA Supreme Court kills the law so that the precedent isn't set. This same tactic was used in the Civil War, basically, as well as the Black Civil Rights movement, so I'm kinda OK with it, but I don't think Prop 8 is as extreme as segregation was, as I don't want the standard for the use of this power by the federal government to be lowered any more than is absolutely necessary.

So, to sum up:

Prop 8 - BAD

Federal Government asserting itself over one of the States - BAD (worse? harder to say in this instance)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 5:10:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 2:39:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:50:05 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:38:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.

Why shouldn't administrations be allowed to influence the court? It's not unconstitutional.


Yes, but if an administration is projecting their morality/bias upon what is supposed to be an objective supreme court, that is bad for all of our freedoms.

Also, the gov't doesn't have the right to define marriage to start, and if they do, where is their sympathy for polygamous couples, and where is the tolerance for incest?

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. Who cares if one branch of the federal government is bickering with another branch of the federal government? That's what they're supposed to do - checks and balances. The Executive Branch tries to influence The Legislative Branch all the time. Why is that OK, but it's not OK with the Judicial Branch, because in my estimation, the former is worse than the latter.

Isn't the checks and balance of the Supreme Court to keep the other two in line, Constitutionally speaking? While the other two can not-that-simply rewrite the Constitution to suit their needs. The Supreme Court shouldn't be swayed by non-legal arguments, and shouldn't the legal ones be presented while Court is in session by the parties involved? After all, a challenge to a law isn't supposed to occur until there is damage done, so it would make sense that the only ones allowed to speak are those that are damaged, and those that are defending the damage.

The Executive Branch influencing the Legislative Branch isn't too bad, as the Executive has the power to veto the Legislative (who, in turn, can override it), but with their influence, can pass a bill that is likely to be signed, thus not wasting too much time.

Although, perhaps if more time was wasted, it would be better...
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:06:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 5:10:02 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/3/2013 2:39:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:50:05 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:38:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 1:55:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Should an administration be trying to influence the Supreme Court, though? Unless, of course, the litigant is the federal government.

Why shouldn't administrations be allowed to influence the court? It's not unconstitutional.


Yes, but if an administration is projecting their morality/bias upon what is supposed to be an objective supreme court, that is bad for all of our freedoms.

Also, the gov't doesn't have the right to define marriage to start, and if they do, where is their sympathy for polygamous couples, and where is the tolerance for incest?

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. Who cares if one branch of the federal government is bickering with another branch of the federal government? That's what they're supposed to do - checks and balances. The Executive Branch tries to influence The Legislative Branch all the time. Why is that OK, but it's not OK with the Judicial Branch, because in my estimation, the former is worse than the latter.

Isn't the checks and balance of the Supreme Court to keep the other two in line, Constitutionally speaking? While the other two can not-that-simply rewrite the Constitution to suit their needs. The Supreme Court shouldn't be swayed by non-legal arguments, and shouldn't the legal ones be presented while Court is in session by the parties involved? After all, a challenge to a law isn't supposed to occur until there is damage done, so it would make sense that the only ones allowed to speak are those that are damaged, and those that are defending the damage.

The Executive Branch influencing the Legislative Branch isn't too bad, as the Executive has the power to veto the Legislative (who, in turn, can override it), but with their influence, can pass a bill that is likely to be signed, thus not wasting too much time.

Although, perhaps if more time was wasted, it would be better...

While you may be correct that The Judicial Branch cannot re-write the constitution, or change it, they can, via the process of English Common Law (which our laws are much more based upon than the constitution), change the law easier than any other branch of the Government.

Also, The Executive Branch, despite the fact that they've been effectively doing it lately, CANNOT change the law, either through Stare Decisis nor amending the constitution.

Finally, do you know what an amicus brief is? It necessarily MUST be a legal argument, not a non-legal one.

Influencing law is fine for The Executive Branch (though again, I hope the SJC of CA beats the federal one to the punch to avoid the precedent). Changing it through Executive Order in a time when no war has been declared by Congress is not (this is like the decree of a monarch, which is exactly what we were supposed to be avoiding when the nation was founded).
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 4:13:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:47:25 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Took long enough

Obama added $7 trillion dollars to the debt, drone strike massacred thousands of women and children, domestic drones in America, American assassinations, interventions in 9 countries, indefinite detentions without trial,

but hey, at least he let gay people have government contracts and women can have their head blown off in the battlefield. Yaayyy Obama!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 11:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 4:13:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:47:25 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Took long enough

Obama added $7 trillion dollars to the debt, drone strike massacred thousands of women and children, domestic drones in America, American assassinations, interventions in 9 countries, indefinite detentions without trial,

but hey, at least he let gay people have government contracts and women can have their head blown off in the battlefield. Yaayyy Obama!

Just out of curiosity, since the sarcasm is too heavy to discern your true opinion, do you believe the limited number of things you listed under the good category at the end of your post (Women allowed to take on combat roles in the ground forces of the military and his urging the SJC via an amicus brief to strike down Prop 8 in CA) are actually good things, or do you believe them to be bad as well, just not, perhaps, as bad as the things you've listed prior to them?

If you don't mind answering that...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 5:39:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 4:13:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:47:25 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/2/2013 6:26:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It looks like he's finally doing something good for once. :)

Took long enough

Obama added $7 trillion dollars to the debt, drone strike massacred thousands of women and children, domestic drones in America, American assassinations, interventions in 9 countries, indefinite detentions without trial,

but hey, at least he let gay people have government contracts and women can have their head blown off in the battlefield. Yaayyy Obama!

I see, so since we're only supposed to focus on bad things that people did, we should define Ron Paul solely by his use of pork, his support for sexual harassment, and his racism.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:41:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/3/2013 11:13:20 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/3/2013 4:13:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obama added $7 trillion dollars to the debt, drone strike massacred thousands of women and children, domestic drones in America, American assassinations, interventions in 9 countries, indefinite detentions without trial,

but hey, at least he let gay people have government contracts and women can have their head blown off in the battlefield. Yaayyy Obama!

Just out of curiosity, since the sarcasm is too heavy to discern your true opinion, do you believe the limited number of things you listed under the good category at the end of your post (Women allowed to take on combat roles in the ground forces of the military and his urging the SJC via an amicus brief to strike down Prop 8 in CA) are actually good things, or do you believe them to be bad as well, just not, perhaps, as bad as the things you've listed prior to them?

If you don't mind answering that...

Should we celebrate women getting their head blown off? No.
Should we celebrate government getting in between gay couples? No. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt unless no straight couple is available.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:45:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 5:39:34 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/3/2013 4:13:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obama added $7 trillion dollars to the debt, drone strike massacred thousands of women and children, domestic drones in America, American assassinations, interventions in 9 countries, indefinite detentions without trial,

but hey, at least he let gay people have government contracts and women can have their head blown off in the battlefield. Yaayyy Obama!

I see, so since we're only supposed to focus on bad things that people did, we should define Ron Paul solely by his use of pork,

Representing his constituents is what he's in Washington for. Pork is pennies to the national budget.

his support for sexual harassment,

and his racism.

Zero evidence of racism coming out of his mouth whatsoever. The newsletters were not written by him and the dialect and linguistic style don't match that of Ron Paul's written or spoken style of speech.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:46:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:41:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/3/2013 11:13:20 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/3/2013 4:13:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obama added $7 trillion dollars to the debt, drone strike massacred thousands of women and children, domestic drones in America, American assassinations, interventions in 9 countries, indefinite detentions without trial,

but hey, at least he let gay people have government contracts and women can have their head blown off in the battlefield. Yaayyy Obama!

Just out of curiosity, since the sarcasm is too heavy to discern your true opinion, do you believe the limited number of things you listed under the good category at the end of your post (Women allowed to take on combat roles in the ground forces of the military and his urging the SJC via an amicus brief to strike down Prop 8 in CA) are actually good things, or do you believe them to be bad as well, just not, perhaps, as bad as the things you've listed prior to them?

If you don't mind answering that...

Should we celebrate women getting their head blown off? No.
Should we celebrate government getting in between gay couples? No. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt unless no straight couple is available.

That's what I thought.

I wanna like you so badly, but you're so bass-ackwards on so many issues that it's hard to have a rational conversation with you unless the subject matter is boxed into one of the narrower and narrower compartments where sanity still rules your opinion.

Oh well.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:51:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:46:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:41:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Should we celebrate women getting their head blown off? No.
Should we celebrate government getting in between gay couples? No. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt unless no straight couple is available.

That's what I thought.

I wanna like you so badly, but you're so bass-ackwards on so many issues that it's hard to have a rational conversation with you unless the subject matter is boxed into one of the narrower and narrower compartments where sanity still rules your opinion.

I wanna hear your reasons why we should celebrate women in fire fights blown up by grenades and why we should celebrate government getting involved in personal affairs. If you're going to criticize at least have a refutation. Why are my statements backwards?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:00:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:54:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
CA, are you against DOMA, or is the state allowed to define marriage if its definition fits with your beliefs?

Proposition 8 is fundamentally different than DOMA. Proposition 8 was enacted by popular initiatives. It was done by popular vote, not state legislations. DOMA, on the contrary, is a decade old federal law passed by Congress.

If federal government still holds state sovereign in high regards, it should stay out of this.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:06:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:41:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Should we celebrate women getting their head blown off? No.
Should we celebrate government getting in between gay couples? No. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt unless no straight couple is available.

I thought you were just being libertarian - i.e. you support the abolition of straight marriage along with gay marriage. But the only reason I can think to deny gay couples adoption rights is bigotry.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:08:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:51:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:46:33 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:41:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Should we celebrate women getting their head blown off? No.
Should we celebrate government getting in between gay couples? No. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt unless no straight couple is available.

That's what I thought.

I wanna like you so badly, but you're so bass-ackwards on so many issues that it's hard to have a rational conversation with you unless the subject matter is boxed into one of the narrower and narrower compartments where sanity still rules your opinion.

I wanna hear your reasons why we should celebrate women in fire fights blown up by grenades and why we should celebrate government getting involved in personal affairs. If you're going to criticize at least have a refutation. Why are my statements backwards?

1. Only women who choose to enter combat roles AND meet the physical requirements are going into combat.

Their body, their choice. What is to be celebrated is their freedom to choose a profession for which they are qualified and want to participate.

2. Gay people are just like non-gay people except for the stuff that goes on in their bedrooms. They want to be able to engage in the economically beneficial, legally beneficial, government sanctioned free association contract that straight people are able to engage in.

Which part do you think is bad here? Is it that we're not legislating what's allowed in their bedroom or is it that we should be denying their right to free association?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:12:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:51:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I wanna hear your reasons why we should celebrate women in fire fights blown up by grenades

Celebrate the CHOICE involved. You support an individual's right to commit suicide? Take harmful drugs? Then you should support women's right to choose to put themselves in whatever danger they choose.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:21:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 10:06:12 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:41:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Should we celebrate women getting their head blown off? No.
Should we celebrate government getting in between gay couples? No. I also don't think they should be allowed to adopt unless no straight couple is available.

I thought you were just being libertarian - i.e. you support the abolition of straight marriage along with gay marriage. But the only reason I can think to deny gay couples adoption rights is bigotry.

French homosexuals demonstrate against same-sex "marriage"

"The rights of children trump the right to children," said Jean Marc, a French mayor -- who is also homosexual.

In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families," he said in an interview. "[T]he most serious study done so far...demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents."

Outraged by the bill, 66 year-old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he "was raised by two women" and that he "suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."

http://www.lifesitenews.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:42:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 10:08:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
1. Only women who choose to enter combat roles AND meet the physical requirements are going into combat.

Their body, their choice. What is to be celebrated is their freedom to choose a profession for which they are qualified and want to participate.

They're being duped. Veterans come home jobless, have the hardest time adjusting to civilian life, aren't sufficiently compensated financially, and get put at the top of the Federal government's terrorist watch list.

According to Liberals, women can't have a gun to defend themselves in their own home, why do they think women should get fully automatic weapons and thrown in a war zone?

Yeah, I'm all for women's choice, but they can have different roles than men in their agency of choice. The frontlines is not ideal for a body frame that is generally more fragile. Women have periods and extra weight their chest.

Why is it acceptable to say only women can be strippers in a gentlemen's club? Why is it acceptable to say only women can be a Hooters waitress? Why is it acceptable to say only men can be pimps?

2. Gay people are just like non-gay people except for the stuff that goes on in their bedrooms. They want to be able to engage in the economically beneficial, legally beneficial, government sanctioned free association contract that straight people are able to engage in.

Which part do you think is bad here? Is it that we're not legislating what's allowed in their bedroom or is it that we should be denying their right to free association?

First of all, all men and women have the right to marry the opposite sex. So the same act is afforded to all people. The law is prohibiting an action, not people.

All people have the right to drive a car on the road, but not boats. Boat-enthusiasts will cry foul and say that's discrimination. No, you as an individual have a right to drive a car on the road like everyone else. But no one is allowed to drive their boat on the freeway.

There is no law preventing them from having gay sex. Name one gay couple arrested in their bedroom. Name one gay couple arrested for being a gay couple.

I believe marriage exists to protect a child to guarantee a mother and father for them til adulthood.

If the government is going to reward lifestyle choices then it should reward single people and unmarried couples.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 10:52:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:54:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:53:40 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

I agree that government has no right to define marriage. That is precisely why Prop 8 needs to be struck down.

I agree.

I agree that the government shouldn't offer any additional benefits/exemptions to anybody just b/c they're married, and shouldn't "recognize" marriage in any way whatsoever.. but Where in the constitution does it mention this?

Even if it did.. would any such restriction be upon the state's???

Don't think so.

I support a state-recognized Gay marriage, given that a state-recognized heterosexual marriage exists...
and though I'm Against the government's recognition/preferential treatment of those who're married, I'm not sure that it's Unconstitutional (especially for the individual states).

That said, along the same lines I can't really see Prop8 being unconstitutional either, and think that in order to argue that discriminating against same-sex couples in this regard is unconstitutional you'd pretty much First have to amend the constitution..

Which would be the proper method... Ideally to prevent discrimination against gay-couples and non-married persons (getting rid of 'marriage')... but, more likely just giving gay-couples the same rights as state-recognized straight couples.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:07:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 10:42:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/4/2013 10:08:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
1. Only women who choose to enter combat roles AND meet the physical requirements are going into combat.

Their body, their choice. What is to be celebrated is their freedom to choose a profession for which they are qualified and want to participate.

They're being duped. Veterans come home jobless, have the hardest time adjusting to civilian life, aren't sufficiently compensated financially, and get put at the top of the Federal government's terrorist watch list.

Freedom of choice means the freedom to make bad choices, doesn't it?


According to Liberals, women can't have a gun to defend themselves in their own home, why do they think women should get fully automatic weapons and thrown in a war zone?

You are sh!tting me with this line of nonsense, right? Who has ever said that either:

A. Women don't have the right to bear arms?

B. Guns for home defense should be banned?

I am what you would call liberal, and while I do believe that handguns have no place in our society, I also staunchly defend the right to keep assault rifles on the market, and I also advocate for tank ownership.

You're making that up.

Yeah, I'm all for women's choice, but they can have different roles than men in their agency of choice. The frontlines is not ideal for a body frame that is generally more fragile. Women have periods and extra weight their chest.

Apparently you haven't seen these women. I'm fragile compared to them.


Why is it acceptable to say only women can be strippers in a gentlemen's club? Why is it acceptable to say only women can be a Hooters waitress? Why is it acceptable to say only men can be pimps?

That's a private business catering to a clientele that only wants to see naked women. It's not the government denying someone the ability to perform a role in defense of country who wants that role, and you know this because I've heard you argue similar before.


2. Gay people are just like non-gay people except for the stuff that goes on in their bedrooms. They want to be able to engage in the economically beneficial, legally beneficial, government sanctioned free association contract that straight people are able to engage in.

Which part do you think is bad here? Is it that we're not legislating what's allowed in their bedroom or is it that we should be denying their right to free association?

First of all, all men and women have the right to marry the opposite sex. So the same act is afforded to all people. The law is prohibiting an action, not people.

ALL PEOPLE have the right to free association, yes or no?

Marriage is a contract of association, yes or no?

If you restrict a contract of association to ONLY one group or another (group A if you belong to group B and vice versa), you are restricting someone's right to freely associate, yes or no?

When the government does this, it is unconstitutional, yes or no?


All people have the right to drive a car on the road, but not boats. Boat-enthusiasts will cry foul and say that's discrimination. No, you as an individual have a right to drive a car on the road like everyone else. But no one is allowed to drive their boat on the freeway.

That's like saying no one is allowed to make ice in boiling water. What you described isn't illegal, it's impossible.

If you have an amphibious vehicle, you can drive your boat on the road, however - http://www.ridetheducksofseattle.com...

There is no law preventing them from having gay sex. Name one gay couple arrested in their bedroom. Name one gay couple arrested for being a gay couple.

There was until 2007. And, not being arrested for the kind of sex one wants to have isn't exactly the high standard of liberty which you typically advocate.

I believe marriage exists to protect a child to guarantee a mother and father for them til adulthood.

That's wonderful, and you are free to believe that, given your 1st amendment rights, but does a gay couple have to be restricted by your beliefs? If you don't want to associate with gays, that's perfectly fine, but you can't advocate for their free association to be restricted and call yourself a Libertarian...at least not with a straight face (no pun intended).


If the government is going to reward lifestyle choices then it should reward single people and unmarried couples.

I agree...EVERYONE should be able to freely associate as they see fit. Right now, there is only one group which receives this reward. Shouldn't it be no one or everyone?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:45:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 10:42:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There is no law preventing them from having gay sex. Name one gay couple arrested in their bedroom. Name one gay couple arrested for being a gay couple.

That used to happen until more recently when sodomy laws were disregarded.

I believe marriage exists to protect a child to guarantee a mother and father for them til adulthood.

LOL. Cool story bro. I believe it exists to protect bananas and guarantee monkeys ball pits to play in.
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:58:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:45:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/4/2013 10:42:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I believe marriage exists to protect a child to guarantee a mother and father for them til adulthood.

LOL. Cool story bro. I believe it exists to protect bananas and guarantee monkeys ball pits to play in.

"Dr. David Popenoe says, "We should disavow the notion that "mommies can make good daddies," just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that "daddies can make good mommies." "The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary " culturally and biologically " for the optimal development of a human being."1

The father, as the male parent, brings unique contributions to the job of parenting that a mother cannot. Psychology Today explains, "Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children. 2"

http://www.citizenlink.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:22:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is no law preventing them from having gay sex. Name one gay couple arrested in their bedroom. Name one gay couple arrested for being a gay couple.

Alan Turing's work laid the foundation for modern computers. His work on the enigma code helped win the second world war. He was arrested and chemically castrated for being gay and committed suicide: http://en.wikipedia.org...