Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter secular_freedom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
royal_archer said:
You are trying to confine the arguement to a narrow point where you feel you can win on a technicallity. Please open your perspective and consider the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
Nope. I gave you the argument. If you want to contest its soundness, then attack the premises. You have no other choice.
  1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).
  1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
  2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
  3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.
 
secular_freedom said:
No, what I’ve done is demonstrate how your argument is fallacious.
  1. You assume that the number of heterosexual couples who can’t procreate is “extremely small.” What evidence do you have for this claim?
  2. You also seem to assume that the number of heterosexual couples incapable of properly raising kids is “extremely small.” What evidence do you have for this claim?
  3. Even if your above claim were correct, that does not in any way justify the discrimination under prop 8. “Good formula for having and arising kids” is not a requirement for marriage. Hence, it follows that this can’t be a requirement for marriage for same-sex couples.
Being able to raise kids to the standard of society is not a requirement for marriage. You are again confusing what “society does not feel” with “many members of society do not feel.” You are again equating the fact that “many members of society does not think group Y can do X” with “group Y can’t do X.”
Click to expand...
In a democracy 51% of society speak for society.

It is too bad that you do not see that it is better for society if children are raised in a normal home and that marriages are licensed to endorse normal relationships. Society does not have an obligation to endorse or license deviant behavior.
 
royal_archer said:
In a democracy 51% of society speak for society.

It is too bad that you do not see that it is better for society if children are raised in a normal home and that marriages are licensed to endorse normal relationships. Society does not have an obligation to endorse or license deviant behavior.
Click to expand...
Okay, it’s clear by now that you have no intention of interacting with my posts. If you refuse to even respond to my arguments, then I don’t need to keep repeating them.
 
secular_freedom said:
Nope. I gave you the argument. If you want to contest its soundness, then attack the premises. You have no other choice.
  1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).
  1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
  2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
  3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.
Click to expand...
It would be better to say that normal couples can normally do X, Y, and Z while it is impossible for gay couples to do X, Y, or Z.

Why would a gay couple want to parade around as a normal married couple, something that by definition they are not?
 
secular_freedom said:
  1. You assume that the number of heterosexual couples who can’t procreate is “extremely small.” What evidence do you have for this claim?
Click to expand...
CDC estimates that one in ten hetero couples (10%) have difficulty getting pregnant or keeping pregnancies (both meet the definition of “infertile”).
 
royal_archer said:
It would be better to say that normal couples can normally do X, Y, and Z while it is impossible for gay couples to do X, Y, or Z.

Why would a gay couple want to parade around as a normal married couple, something that by definition they are not?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this doesn’t address the soundness of my argument. You need to contest one of the premises if you reject the conclusion.
  1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).
  1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
  2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
  3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.
 
larkin31 said:
CDC estimates that one in ten hetero couples (10%) have difficulty getting pregnant or keeping pregnancies (both meet the definition of “infertile”).
Click to expand...
100% of gay couples are unable to have children

100% of normal couples offer a mother and a father. 0% of gay couples offer a mother and father.
 
And this:
Male infertility increases over past 40 years
One-half of 1% of men were functionally sterile in 1938. Today it has reached between 8-12% (an over 15-fold increase). “Functionally sterile” is defined as sperm counts below 20 million per milliliter of semen.
Click to expand...
 
secular_freedom said:
Sorry, but this doesn’t address the soundness of my argument. You need to contest one of the premises if you reject the conclusion.
  1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).
  1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
  2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
  3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.
Click to expand...
I reject many of your premises including the one that a failure in a small number of normal couples to have a child with current science justifies that it is impossible for 100% of gay couples to have children. I also reject your premise that inability to achieve conception is the sole point of rational for society rejecting the need to license gay couples as married couples.
 
royal_archer said:
I reject many of your premises
Click to expand...
Then indicate which premise you reject.
royal_archer said:
including the one that a failure in a small number of normal couples to have a child with current science justifies that it is impossible for 100% of gay couples to have children.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a premise of my argument.
royal_archer said:
I also reject your premise that inability to achieve conception is the sole point of rational for society rejecting the need to license gay couples as married couples.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a premise of my argument.
 
larkin31 said:
Except that 8-12 % of American hetero couples get a free pass on the fertility requirement for marriage. Seems a little unjust, no?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Apparently, this fact just isn’t hitting home for Royal.
 
secular_freedom said:
Then indicate which premise you reject.

This isn’t a premise of my argument.

This isn’t a premise of my argument.
Click to expand...
I’ll play along …

Why is it in societies interest to ignore the will of the people and redefine marriage so as to give a license meant to facilitate normal families to individuals who have outwardly proven that they have no intention to create a normal family and instead pursue bahavior that a majority of Americans consider to be deviant?
 
secular_freedom said:
According to you, then, if the majority of Americans say that “peanut butter” is relevant to whether prop 8 is justified, then it is.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say just. many rules are unjust, discriminatory, and biased. But in a democracy where there is 51% at the ballot box, voter might makes right.
 
secular_freedom said:
Absolutely. Apparently, this fact just isn’t hitting home for Royal.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t know. I don’t see his posts any longer unless someone quotes them.

The infertility rates were higher even than I would have guessed. The report also said that 50% of those deemed “infertile” NEVER have children.

And that is just about the same portion of the overall US population as the gays! Voila! The 100% infertile hetero couples have nothing questioned, but the same number of 100% infertile homosexual couples have it held against them legally to prevent access to marriage.

VERY uncool, to quote one of my students.
 
royal_archer said:
I didn’t say just. many rules are unjust, discriminatory, and biased. But in a democracy where there is 51% at the ballot box voter might makes right.
Click to expand...
Not in America. If 51% of the voters in a State decided to make the possession of firearms illegal then their wishes would be ignored because such a law would be unconstitutional. The question the courts are deciding is whether or not Proposition 8 is unconstitutional or not.

America is not a pure democracy, it is a Republic so the power of the voters is limited by the Constitution. The majority can only act within the Constitution.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top