*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #80 on: July 03, 2015, 07:30:14 PM »
I notice you've ignored this part of my response:

If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.

Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:

Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.

Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.

Before we go any further, please explain why something being the status quo is sufficient justification in your argument, but not mine.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #81 on: July 03, 2015, 07:31:22 PM »
It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.
Yes, and the Supreme Court decision was that disallowing gay marriage is a breach of the 14th Amendment. While the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, it is part of the U.S. Constitution all the same (which is the actual document you should be referencing here anyway), and holds the same weight as the Bill of Rights.

Now, if you don't like the 14th Amendment, I'm sure you can start a political group to get rid of it; but until then, right or wrong, your country has deemed that denying gay marriage is a breach of Americans' fundamental freedoms.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #82 on: July 03, 2015, 08:05:35 PM »
I notice you've ignored this part of my response:

If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.

Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:

Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.

Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.

Before we go any further, please explain why something being the status quo is sufficient justification in your argument, but not mine.

You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, that you have options to enact change.

I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. My questions were not addressed with that statement. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 08:10:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #83 on: July 03, 2015, 08:11:00 PM »
You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, it is your duty to start or join political groups which support those ideals.

Precisely. Your answer to "why should democracy extend as far as it does?" was "democracy currently extends as far as it does" ...

I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. The questions were not addressed. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.

... and my answer to "why should gay marriage be legal?" was "gay marriage is currently legal".

If you want to avoid a double standard, you'll either need to redact your circular reasoning in favour of American democracy, or else substantiate it with a reason why things should be as they are.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #84 on: July 03, 2015, 08:19:07 PM »
The argument has been made that the State should not be involved in marriage at all. This is BS. The State should indeed be in the business of maintaining stable, healthy family dynamics. and little Sally growing up with two Dads is not a healthy dynamic. Allowing children to think that homosexuality is in any way "cool" or appropriate is analogous to letting them think that smoking is "cool"  or healthy.

Smoking gives you severe medical problems. Homosexuality likewise gives you medical problems (men who take it in the can often wind up wearing a bag in later years), not counting the AIDS and HIV that started in their population before moving to the Straight population by going through the Bis first.

Aside from that, you have the emotional turmoil that homosexuals live each day, knowing that they are outcasts in a society that does not, and never will, accept them. It would be far better for them if they just strove to be happy in a straight relationship or, if that is not possible, then gave their lives to G-d in  the holy sacrifice of celibacy.

No, I am not one of those who believes in "Pray the Gay Away", or hormone therapy. I think that both of those usually wind up in causing further emotional damage to the gay person, and in the latter case, possibly physical damage as well.

But I do believe in self-discipline and self dignity. Just because you are minded to do it doesn't make it dignified. A person might be minded to look at porn. That doesn't make it ok to look at the stuff. There are all kinds of things that people are minded to do that don't have any moral integrity to at all, and in fact may be morally bankrupt. So the fact that they are morally minded to do those things doesn't make those things right. Homosexuality is just one of those things.

***EDIT***

We are having a similar conversation at the other site. This was my latest contribution there. Tom, you keep right on going my man!

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #85 on: July 03, 2015, 08:19:12 PM »
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.

The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.

Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.

It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.

I know this post is a little old, but sticking with this analogy, when the government has decided a cull needs to happen, you don't get money for shooting at deer/coyotes, you only get money when you show up with a carcass.
Why not only give benefits to people caring for children instead of married couples, if that's the goal?
Quote from: Saddam Hussein
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #86 on: July 03, 2015, 09:41:19 PM »
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.

The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.

Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.

It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.

I know this post is a little old, but sticking with this analogy, when the government has decided a cull needs to happen, you don't get money for shooting at deer/coyotes, you only get money when you show up with a carcass.
Why not only give benefits to people caring for children instead of married couples, if that's the goal?

Because the government wants to reward committed and stable relationships that can foster a family.

If the government simply gave a woman a dollar amount every time she popped out a child, that would encourage the wrong type of behavior. Women are popping out children all the time, married or unmarried, and the government knows this.

Single mothers put a strain on welfare, whereas married couples typically do not. The government wants to encourage one type of behavior over the other.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 10:20:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #87 on: July 03, 2015, 10:03:01 PM »
You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, it is your duty to start or join political groups which support those ideals.

Precisely. Your answer to "why should democracy extend as far as it does?" was "democracy currently extends as far as it does" ...

I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. The questions were not addressed. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.

... and my answer to "why should gay marriage be legal?" was "gay marriage is currently legal".

If you want to avoid a double standard, you'll either need to redact your circular reasoning in favour of American democracy, or else substantiate it with a reason why things should be as they are.

I have no reason to redact anything. You did not ask any question specifically, but expressed concern over the concept of majority rule and I justified that we presently live in a democracy and also mentioned the Bill of Rights as the key framework which limits the extent of majority rule. The founders put much thought into the American system of government, and many countries adopted their own constitutions and guarantees of rights, modeled directly after the system of the United States.

I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 10:11:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #88 on: July 03, 2015, 10:17:00 PM »

I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.

It should be legal for the same reason hetero marriage is legal.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #89 on: July 03, 2015, 10:17:10 PM »


Women are popping out children all the time, married or unmarried, and the government knows this. Single mothers put a strain on welfare, whereas married couples typically do not. The government wants to encourage one type of behavior over the other.

Thats probably why Enigma didn't say anything about giving money to women for popping out babies
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #90 on: July 03, 2015, 10:56:32 PM »


Women are popping out children all the time, married or unmarried, and the government knows this. Single mothers put a strain on welfare, whereas married couples typically do not. The government wants to encourage one type of behavior over the other.

Thats probably why Enigma didn't say anything about giving money to women for popping out babies

He should provide a clearer argument, then. "Caring for children" could mean by a single parent or by a couple.

But greater benefits are already given for married people who do more than simply get married, and who choose to raise children together as a family. Marriage is the first step towards a stable family unit and so that first step is incentivised with tax benefits, just like the subsidies given to farmers who buy empty acres of land. It fosters stability and encourages further activity.

Once a child is brought into the world, the married couple will then receive a greater amount of tax benefits than the tax benefits single parents receive, which goes on top of the base benefits they receive for simply being married.

If you are a single mother living on your own you can claim your daughter as a dependent, and receive money for that. The father who lives separate from the home cannot receive money for that, as the rules for dependents are such that the child must live in his household and he must support the majority of the child's needs. If the mother and father were to marry, on the other hand, the government allows married couples to both claim the child as a dependent and receive twice the money than they would have otherwise separated. The same doubling of benefits is identical for child tax credits and perhaps some other child related things.

So, the conception and caring of children by married couples is already rewarded on a yearly basis by the tax system, as a level 2 benefit, and the argument is null.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 12:00:11 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #91 on: July 04, 2015, 12:01:47 AM »
There's literally no valid argument against gay marriage. You can try invoking your "it's icky" standpoint, and when that fails, try to make it about something else. In fact, some studies show gay parents are better parents than hetero parents, therefore they should be given additional tax benefits over hetero couples for providing a better, more stable family.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #92 on: July 04, 2015, 12:24:30 AM »
It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.
Yes, and the Supreme Court decision was that disallowing gay marriage is a breach of the 14th Amendment. While the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, it is part of the U.S. Constitution all the same (which is the actual document you should be referencing here anyway), and holds the same weight as the Bill of Rights.

Now, if you don't like the 14th Amendment, I'm sure you can start a political group to get rid of it; but until then, right or wrong, your country has deemed that denying gay marriage is a breach of Americans' fundamental freedoms.

Here is the pertinent section of the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court thinks applies to Gay Marriage:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Quote
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How does that equate to "Gay Marriage should be legal"? Does the right to marry anyone you please fall under the right to life, liberty or property? I certainly did not read anything about that in the Bill of Rights.

The States already gave the gays the right to life together. It was called Civil Union. No one was standing in the way of homosexual love.

If we look through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we find that "marriage" is not mentioned anywhere. The words "life" and "liberty" are the closest we get.

The 10th Amendment states that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is to be determined and regulated by the States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I submit, therefore, that the Supreme Court's instructions towards the States to allow Gay Marriage is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot tell the States anything in regards to Gay Marriage. That is a topic they must decide on for themselves.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #93 on: July 04, 2015, 12:28:58 AM »
I certainly did not read anything about that in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, Tom, we've already established that the 14th Amendment is not part of the first 10 amendments. 14 is, indeed, a higher number than 10. Your obsession with the first 10 amendments is entirely unexplained and unsubstantiated.

If we look through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we find that "marriage" is not mentioned anywhere. The words "life" and "liberty" are the closest we get.
I suppose the word "privileges" escaped you. The Supreme Court produced a rather lengthy document discussing their decision. Numerous news sources provided a more concise elaboration. If you really want to find out what guided their decision, I'd recommend those as starting points.

The 10th Amendment states that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is to be determined and regulated by the States
Yes, we've already established that 10<14. We can infer that 10!=14. The Supreme Court decision does, in fact, discuss the usurpation of the 10th Amendment laws caused by this change.

I submit, therefore, that the Supreme Court's instructions towards the States to allow Gay Marriage is unconstitutional.
In that case, I suggest that you follow due process and take the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court, pointing out to them that you dislike Article III of the Constitution.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 12:33:00 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Saddam Hussein

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #94 on: July 04, 2015, 01:21:52 AM »
Does the right to marry anyone you please fall under the right to life, liberty or property?

That's the due process clause.  What prohibiting gay marriage violates is the equal protection clause, namely "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #95 on: July 04, 2015, 02:46:58 AM »
I have no reason to redact anything. You did not ask any question specifically, but expressed concern over the concept of majority rule and I justified that we presently live in a democracy and also mentioned the Bill of Rights as the key framework which limits the extent of majority rule. The founders put much thought into the American system of government, and many countries adopted their own constitutions and guarantees of rights, modeled directly after the system of the United States.

Irrelevant. You still used the existence of democracy as justification for democracy. That's like me expressing concern over the Charleston shooting, and you providing justification that there are currently racists in America.

I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.

It is satisfactory to precisely the same extent as your "justification" for democracy. Either my case is unsatisfactory, and so is yours, or they are both satisfactory. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #96 on: July 04, 2015, 02:59:30 AM »
Quote from: SexWarrior
I suppose the word "privileges" escaped you. The Supreme Court produced a rather lengthy document discussing their decision. Numerous news sources provided a more concise elaboration. If you really want to find out what guided their decision, I'd recommend those as starting points.

I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html

Quote from: Chief Justice John Roberts
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

I respectfully dissent.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 03:19:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #97 on: July 04, 2015, 03:12:42 AM »
Does the right to marry anyone you please fall under the right to life, liberty or property?

That's the due process clause.  What prohibiting gay marriage violates is the equal protection clause, namely "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Chief Justice Roberts has basically admitted that the Supreme Court went rogue and the decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. They had a desired goal, and they achieved it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #98 on: July 04, 2015, 03:16:38 AM »
I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html

Quote from:  Chief Justice John Roberts
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

I respectfully dissent.
Yes, there was a vote, and those who disagreed expressed disagreement. Are you going to start responding to points anytime soon?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
« Reply #99 on: July 04, 2015, 03:18:26 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
why

Because DOMA's exclusion of same-sex marriage does not further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2181517
Quote
To be clear, biology is and has been relevant to establishing and recognizing parenthood and family status. Moreover, one could argue plausibly that historically the government sought to channel childbearing and childrearing into marital relationships. Advocates of biological primacy, however, totalize this history and ignore counternarratives demonstrating that family formation and recognition have not been limited to families comprised of only biologically related members.

[...]This analysis reveals that in a vast array of federal benefits programs, eligibility is not conditioned on a child’s biological connection with his or her parent(s). Instead, Congress long has both implicitly and explicitly extended benefits to biologically unrelated children.

First, many biologically unrelated children are implicitly included as beneficiaries of federal family-based benefits by virtue of Congress’s incorporation of state family law as an eligibility standard. As the Supreme Court recently explained, biology is not and has not been a prerequisite to legal parentage under state law. Second, and even more persuasively, in these and other federal family-based benefits programs, Congress explicitly and deliberately included as potential beneficiaries two classes of children known to be biologically unrelated to their parents: stepchildren and adopted children. Congress did so despite the fact that even today, stepchildren are entitled to relatively little protection under state family law.

Congress therefore was not obligated to extend protections to these biologically unrelated children and in fact bucked the trend by doing so. Moreover, Congress took swift and decisive actions to “correct” attempts by executive officials and agencies to limit the scope of protections for stepchildren and adopted children. This history undermines responsible procreation, which is premised on the notion that the federal government long sought to limit federal family-based benefits to only families with biologically related children.

The history uncovered in this Article is both timely and important, as the Supreme Court will weigh on the validity of Section 3 in the near future. With such a decision looming, it is particularly important to take responsible procreation seriously and subject it to careful scrutiny. Even under rational basis review, a permissible classification must at least “find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation.” Given that responsible procreation is founded on a mythical and inaccurate history of federal policy, the argument fails even this basic test.

And also for the same entirely reasonable warrants you've already been given.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 03:22:11 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.