Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
MindOverMatter

**Your back to the contextual fallacy of voting again as being the determinant grounds upon which the legal system defines and enforces human-rights. **

This is a laughable notion. Do you think when the Supreme Court rules they do not vote first?
Click to expand...
I am going to ask you the same question that I asked him.

Can you vote against interracial marriage. yes or no.
 
If only 2 or 3% of Americans are homosexuals how is it possible that they can trample the will and the rights of the majority?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I am going to ask you the same question that I asked him.

Can you vote against interracial marriage. yes or no.
Click to expand...
And it is just as irrelevant as it was the last time it was asked (refer back to my previous post)…

I see this discussion going nowhere fast.

🍿
 
Buck_Crosswhite said:
If only 2 or 3% of Americans are homosexuals how is it possible that they can trample the will and the rights of the majority?
Click to expand...
Because its not just about voting. Your precisely right in raising that issue. The people on this forum do not know what they are talking about. Anybody can quote information, but it takes a rational and honest discernment to determine its meaning the consequences that follow.
 
mtbender said:
And it is just as irrelevant as it was the last time it was asked (refer back to my previous post)…

I see this discussion going nowhere fast.

🍿
Click to expand...
Assertions and wilful ignorance goes nowhere. Can you or can you not.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Assertions and wilful ignorance goes nowhere. Can you or can you not.
Click to expand...
It’s irrelevant because it has no bearing on the ones belief on same-sex marriage…

If you follow the traditional intent this interracial marriage question goes out the window. Speaking solely from the secular viewpoint, it meets the intent/purpose of marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot do the same. So yes, I can support it without supporting same-sex marriage.

For arguments sake, I was looking for definition or interpretation of the intent of marriage… but if you can’t answer that than that’s okay – but it makes it hard to argue about a law when you cannot acknowledge the intent of the law in question.

And please, by all means, highlight my “willful ignorance” with your prolific wisdom…
 
Sorry, didn’t know you would have a hard time finding that in my post…
So yes, I can support it without supporting same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
That would equate to a no, I would not vote against interracial marriage, but I am still waiting for someone to highlight the relevance to same-sex marriage.

Now that I humored you, care to answer my question regarding the intent of the law?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Can you or can you not vote agaisnt interacial marriage.

I did not ask “would you”
Click to expand...
Free will always offers two options… not sure the point you are trying to make with that. Can I, certainly – I can also paint my cat purple and call it a dog.

Relevance?

And I noticed as much as I have chased you down this rabbit hole you still have not answered my question…
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I am only going to ask you this question once. If you don’t answer this question directly, I am going to ignore you from this point forward.
  1. Can you vote against mixed marriages in America?
Click to expand...
Please answer this question directly, yes or no.
Would you vote for a law that would make abortion illegal 100% of the time?
 
MindOverMatter

Can you vote against mixed marriages in America?

Why would anybody vote for it or against it? Are you saying mixed marriages are in the same category as sodomite marriages? A bit of apples and oranges there. 😃
 
Charlemagne_II said:
MindOverMatter

Can you vote against mixed marriages in America?

Why would anybody vote for it or against it? Are you saying mixed marriages are in the same category as sodomite marriages? A bit of apples and oranges there. 😃
Click to expand...
Can you vote against mixed marriages in America?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
MindOverMatter

Can you vote against mixed marriages in America?

Why would anybody vote for it or against it? Are you saying mixed marriages are in the same category as sodomite marriages? A bit of apples and oranges there. 😃
Click to expand...
It may be an equal protection issue, in which case an amendment could not be made prohibiting same gender marriage as it would violate other provisions of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has not heard it yet. I have not followed it closely, but I believe the matter has made its way as far as the 9th Circuit, in which case it will be going to the Supreme Court no matter what the ruling is. The Court could decline to hear the case, in which case the 9th Circuit’s ruling would stand. But in either event, there should be a decision before too long. It is the Prop 8 case, which is being argued on equal protection issues by the attorney who represented President Bush in the Florida election fiasco.

When you make these arguments, keep in mind that you sound a lot like people who were opposed to inter-racial marriage. It was obvious to them that such marriages were unnatural. They were quite clear on that. What seems so obvious now, was not so obvious then.
 
Mudgely said:
It may be an equal protection issue, in which case an amendment could not be made prohibiting same gender marriage as it would violate other provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was instituted along with the original clause which reads: “Persons born and residing in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
The Equal Protection Clause is designed to prevent freed slaves from becoming second-class citizens and, in fact, prevented the possible formation of different classes of citizens. That was the intention of the Equal Protection Clause and it has nothing to do with idiosyncratic qualities.
Mudgely said:
When you make these arguments, keep in mind that you sound a lot like people who were opposed to inter-racial marriage. It was obvious to them that such marriages were unnatural. They were quite clear on that. What seems so obvious now, was not so obvious then.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. It is the same old call them “racist” tactic to shut people up.
I challenge anybody who wants to defend homosexuality to say if they condemn slavery and genocide.
A fundamental reason they can be condemned is on the basis of the natural law. We don’t speak of enslaving animals.

Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural law.

God bless.
 
mo3 said:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was instituted along with the original clause which reads: “Persons born and residing in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
The Equal Protection Clause is designed to prevent freed slaves from becoming second-class citizens and, in fact, prevented the possible formation of different classes of citizens. That was the intention of the Equal Protection Clause and it has nothing to do with idiosyncratic qualities.

This is nonsense. It is the same old call them “racist” tactic to shut people up.
I challenge anybody who wants to defend homosexuality to say if they condemn slavery and genocide.
A fundamental reason they can be condemned is on the basis of the natural law. We don’t speak of enslaving animals.

Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural law.

God bless.
Click to expand...
So far, the courts disagree with you. DADT has been struck down as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. DOMA has been struck down at the state supreme courts level as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The prop 8 election results were overturned in Federal Court as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Legal review of these decisions seem to concur that they are solid legal rulings. So, while you may think that our body of jurisprudence is nonsense, I disagree with your opinion.
 
Mudgely said:
So far, the courts disagree with you. DADT has been struck down as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. DOMA has been struck down at the state supreme courts level as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The prop 8 election results were overturned in Federal Court as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Legal review of these decisions seem to concur that they are solid legal rulings. So, while you may think that our body of jurisprudence is nonsense, I disagree with your opinion.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a State institution that belongs with the States and there is zero constitutional authority for a federal court to question or intervene.
The problem with modern equal protection arguments is activists and judges confuse equal protection with equal rights.
God bless.
 
Mudgely said:
So far, the courts disagree with you. DADT has been struck down as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. DOMA has been struck down at the state supreme courts level as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The prop 8 election results were overturned in Federal Court as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Legal review of these decisions seem to concur that they are solid legal rulings. So, while you may think that our body of jurisprudence is nonsense, I disagree with your opinion.
Click to expand...
You are talking to a brick wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top