Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[rossum]

There is a difference between an individual and categorical ability to procreate. While specific individuals may not be able to have children, most in the tried and true formula have the ability.

That depends on how you split your categories. I fall into the category “male”. As a member of that category I am unable to procreate without going outside my category. Are you therefore saying that all males should be denied marriage because they cannot procreate within their category? All members of the category “females past the age of the menopause” cannot procreate, either within or outside their category. Are they forbidden to marry? What justification do you have for one particular set of categories rather than a different set of categories?

However if they are raising a child, that child needs a father and mother and the institution of marriage helps facilitate the mother and father remaining in the childs life and results in the child better able to adapt to society. That is what I (and the rest of society) have an interest in. It is this aspect of raising children that raises the status of the couple to somethin that we want to make legaly binding with the licensing process.

However the law does not make this legally binding, a couple with children are allowed to divorce. Your idea of marriage and child-raising is not followed at present by the law in America.

rossum

 

[dskysmine]

Try again. Nothing you wrote challenges either the validity or soundness of my argument

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).

Does the state have that information? No…

1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.

Then why would the state grant rights on married people that are not given to single people?

1. 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.

If 1 and 2 fail, this conclusion is a non-sequitor.

1. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.

Why repeat 3 with another non-sequitor?

 

[larkin31]

Does the state have that information? No…

We all know that approximately 10% of hetero couples are infertile. We all know that ALL post-menopausal couples are infertile. We all know that any couple that tries hard NOT to have kids will likely not have kids (I had one “oops” pregnancy in 22 years of sex). All of these situations are functionally infertile and we know that the situations widely exist and the “state” knows this too. But, because the state is uninterested in this legally, is not interested in denying marriage on these grounds of infertility (whether intentional or not), the state does not ask specific couples about the matter.

Except, apparently, in your argument against gay marriage. You want to hold* functional infertility* (they may well be producing sperm and eggs) against ONLY gays, which is another form of discrimination.

 

[dskysmine]

We all know that approximately 10% of hetero couples are infertile.

How does that consist in knowledge if some one is infertile or not?

We all know that ALL post-menopausal couples are infertile.

How does the state know if some one has passed menopause or not?

We all know that any couple that tries hard NOT to have kids will likely not have kids (I had one “oops” pregnancy in 22 years of sex).

How does the state see into the minds of people who get married if they want or not to have children?

All of these situations are functionally infertile and we know that the situations widely exist and the “state” knows this too. But, because the state is uninterested in this legally, is not interested in denying marriage on these grounds of infertility (whether intentional or not), the state does not ask specific couples about the matter.

Doesn’t he? The state doesn’t allow for marriage below a certain age even with parental consent. The state doesn’t allow for marriage between people with close relative bonds. Marriage serves a purpose to the state, or else it wouldn’t exist.

Except, apparently, in your argument against gay marriage. You want to hold* functional infertility* (they may well be producing sperm and eggs) against ONLY gays, which is another form of discrimination.

It is not only on ground for infertility that the ban on marriage to homosexuals makes sense, it is also in the sense of no discrimination to the sexes. If the family is the grounds for foundation to new generations it makes sense to the state that both sexes are allowed to express themselves to the education of the new generations. If new generations are only taught by one sex they would be given no access to both the sexes point of view. And, of course, since marriage serves the purpose of creating and educating new generations, we have to think about the rights of those new generations. Who are you to deny access to a mother and a father to a child? That is why adoption is a hard and tenuous work to provide adequate provision to children who unwillingly lost that access. Maybe you should check the “declarations of the rights of child”…

 

[secular_freedom]

Does the state have that information? No…

How does this challenge the truth of my premise?

Then why would the state grant rights on married people that are not given to single people?

How does this challenge the truth of my premise?

If 1 and 2 fail, this conclusion is a non-sequitor.

Incorrect. The conclusion follows.

Why repeat 3 with another non-sequitor?

It’s not a non-sequitur.

 

[dskysmine]

How does this challenge the truth of my premise?

Your premise is that the state allows for infertile people to marry, but the state does not know that heterosexual couples are infertile so it is moot to say that they are infertile. The state doesn’t allow people under 21 to drink wine but can easily ask some one to provide for an ID, they cannot do the same for heterosexual couples.

How does this challenge the truth of my premise?

Marriage is a social contract that the state grants privileges to… it wasn’t created by the state. Your argument could only be valid for civil unions or so…

Incorrect. The conclusion follows.

How does it follow?
A = marriage
B = fertility
C = homosexuals
B ∉ A
B ∉ C
then C ⊆ A ?

Try it with:
A = goats
B = ability to fly
C = humans

Or maybe you agree that humans are a subset of goats lol

It’s not a non-sequitur.

It’s a repetition of conclusion 3… it’s a non-sequitor! >_>

 

[larkin31]

How does that consist in knowledge if some one is infertile or not?

How does the state know if some one has passed menopause or not?

How does the state see into the minds of people who get married if they want or not to have children?

The state COULD do any of these, but it DOES NOT. The state IS NOT INTERESTED IN THESE CONDITIONS AS REQUIREMENTS FOR MARRIAGE. They are, in fact, NOT requirements for marriage.

except, as you would like to argue, in the case of gays, in order to exclude them. This is “unequal treatment under the law.”

It is not only on ground for infertility that the ban on marriage to homosexuals makes sense, it is also in the sense of no discrimination to the sexes. If the family is the grounds for foundation to new generations it makes sense to the state that both sexes are allowed to express themselves to the education of the new generations.

What does this have to do with categorical prohibition of gays?

If new generations are only taught by one sex they would be given no access to both the sexes point of view.

“new generations”…“ONLY taught by gays”??? What nightmare world are you afraid of?

And, of course, since marriage serves the purpose of creating and educating new generations, we have to think about the rights of those new generations. Who are you to deny access to a mother and a father to a child?

Is that a 14th Amendment issue? What are you talking about? Children don’t have the “right” to pick their biological parents or legal guardians or adoptive parents. And states only have the “right” to “pick” categories of spouses when there are clear and compelling reasons not based only on simple religious mores. You must demonstrate the evidence WHY gay marriage has done harm or is likely to do so. And more than just claim it. You must demonstrate it.

That is why adoption is a hard and tenuous work to provide adequate provision to children who unwillingly lost that access. Maybe you should check the “declarations of the rights of child”…

What document is this? Quote it for us, please, and post its source. I have never heard of it.

 

[dskysmine]

The state COULD do any of these, but it DOES NOT. The state IS NOT INTERESTED IN THESE CONDITIONS AS REQUIREMENTS FOR MARRIAGE. They are, in fact, NOT requirements for marriage.

Are you generally this obtuse or is just now?
The state has interest that people marry and have children. Marriage is the foundation upon which new generations can be created and educated in a safe (or as safe as possible) and rich (or as rich as possible) environment.
The state did not create marriage! It recognized it as a positive social contract to which it granted rights and privileges, if it didn’t it would grant the same rights to single people, it wouldn’t prohibit incestuous marriages, etc…

except, as you would like to argue, in the case of gays, in order to exclude them. This is “unequal treatment under the law.”

What does this have to do with categorical prohibition of gays?

I’ll make this as simple as possible:
Marriage → Education of new generations
If
Education of new generations → gays
then
Education of new generations = one gender Education of new generations

Conclusion:
If Education of new generations → heterosexuals
then
Education of new generations = both gender Education of new generations

Maybe you need some kind of glasses to understand english?

“new generations”…“ONLY taught by gays”??? What nightmare world are you afraid of?

A world where people don’t view the necessity of the opposing gender (like the homosexual community).

Is that a 14th Amendment issue? What are you talking about? Children don’t have the “right” to pick their biological parents or legal guardians or adoptive parents.

They don’t have the “right” to pick their biological parents but, if they are old enough they can choose their legal guardians and adoptive parents from a state chosen pool. Of course when I am talking about the right to have decent education I could just as easily talk about the school system where children can’t choose their teacher, but if the teacher doesn’t teach factual science, literature, etc… it is not a suitable teacher, then one can argue that if some one teaches that gay parents can have children or teach both the female and male psychology one would find it unsuitable parent (which includes gay couples).

And states only have the “right” to “pick” categories of spouses when there are clear and compelling reasons not based only on simple religious mores. You must demonstrate the evidence WHY gay marriage has done harm or is likely to do so. And more than just claim it. You must demonstrate it.

I have already explained it to you, you just were too blind to see my argument.

What document is this? Quote it for us, please, and post its source. I have never heard of it.

Ignorance is such an ugly beast isn’t it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Child
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
Just some quotes:
“States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”
So that children are not only educated in the father’s point of view or only the mother’s point of view.
"States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall:

1. Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary;"
   This one speaks for itself…

 

[larkin31]

Are you generally this obtuse or is just now?

We all have been cautioned against making ad hominem smears. I expect you in conversing with me to follow the rules.

The state has interest that people marry and have children. Marriage is the foundation upon which new generations can be created and educated in a safe (or as safe as possible) and rich (or as rich as possible) environment.

Of course. I agree.

The state did not create marriage! It recognized it as a positive social contract to which it granted rights and privileges, if it didn’t it would grant the same rights to single people, it wouldn’t prohibit incestuous marriages, etc…

This law only covers civil marriages. Religious institutions can refuse to marry those whom they wish.

I’ll make this as simple as possible:
Marriage → Education of new generations
If
Education of new generations → gays
then
Education of new generations = one gender Education of new generations

Please stick to sentences with subjects and predicates.

Maybe you need some kind of glasses to understand english?

This does not deserve a response.

A world where people don’t view the necessity of the opposing gender (like the homosexual community).

Gays NEVER argue for this, and efforts for gay marriage do NOT argue for this. It is little more than a screed.

They don’t have the “right” to pick their biological parents but, if they are old enough they can choose their legal guardians and adoptive parents from a state chosen pool

True. So how is this relevant as a reason to deny gay marriage?

Of course when I am talking about the right to have decent education I could just as easily talk about the school system where children can’t choose their teacher, but if the teacher doesn’t teach factual science, literature, etc… it is not a suitable teacher, then one can argue that if some one teaches that gay parents can have children or teach both the female and male psychology one would find it unsuitable parent (which includes gay couples).

Teaching certificates and accreditation have nothing to do with gender, nor with sexual orientation.

Ignorance is such an ugly beast isn’t it?

Another smear. If you keep doing this, I will report you. If you cannot disagree in a civil manner, then you should go away from this thread.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Child
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
Just some quotes:
“States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

Thanks.

"States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall:

1. Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary;"
   This one speaks for itself…

I see nothing here about gender (it seems scrupulously avoided, and nothing about sexual orientation. There are 54 articles to this document. None is about sexual orientation in any way.

 

[royal_archer]

That depends on how you split your categories. I fall into the category “male”. As a member of that category I am unable to procreate without going outside my category. Are you therefore saying that all males should be denied marriage because they cannot procreate within their category?

Yes they should be denied marriage unless there is a woman as part of the marrital entity.

All members of the category “females past the age of the menopause” cannot procreate, either within or outside their category. Are they forbidden to marry? What justification do you have for one particular set of categories rather than a different set of categories?

Menopause is a variable that requires additional evaluation and it is not practical to require proof that the wife to be has not gone through menopause. With gays it is outwardly obvious that they can never be a mother and a father.

However the law does not make this legally binding, a couple with children are allowed to divorce. Your idea of marriage and child-raising is not followed at present by the law in America.

rossum

It is adventageous that the parrents be married and the marriage option is provided to support the family but that does not dictate that marriage is a requirement.

 

[royal_archer]

We all know that approximately 10% of hetero couples are infertile. We all know that ALL post-menopausal couples are infertile. We all know that any couple that tries hard NOT to have kids will likely not have kids (I had one “oops” pregnancy in 22 years of sex). All of these situations are functionally infertile and we know that the situations widely exist and the “state” knows this too. But, because the state is uninterested in this legally, is not interested in denying marriage on these grounds of infertility (whether intentional or not), the state does not ask specific couples about the matter.

Except, apparently, in your argument against gay marriage. You want to hold* functional infertility* (they may well be producing sperm and eggs) against ONLY gays, which is another form of discrimination.

Even an infertile couple can provide a normal home life (Mother and Father) for raising a child. A gay couple, by default, can not.

 

[royal_archer]

This law only covers civil marriages. Religious institutions can refuse to marry those whom they wish.

Partially wrong.

Part of the problem is that the gay community want marrital bennefits and recognition from private as well as government sources.

They want to force religious institutions to give them the same spousal bennefits and they want hotel owners and other private service industries to threat them the way they treat a married couple.

In short the gay agenda groups want to take away our first ammendement rights.

If Prop 8 is defeated then it is likely gays will use it as a reason to sue religious institutions to not “discriminate” against them and through the overwhelming court costs of repetetive frivolous / bogus cases, force religious institutions to cave in to the gays.

 

[PassingThru]

Partially wrong.

Part of the problem is that the gay community want marrital bennefits and recognition from private as well as government sources.

They want to force religious institutions to give them the same spousal bennefits and they want hotel owners and other private service industries to threat them the way they treat a married couple.

In short the gay agenda groups want to take away our first ammendement rights.

If Prop 8 is defeated then it is likely gays will use it as a reason to sue religious institutions to not “discriminate” against them and through the overwhelming court costs of repetetive frivolous / bogus cases, force religious institutions to cave in to the gays.

A heterosexual jewish couple could never get married in a Catholic church. Or most any Christian church for that matter. How is the Church not getting buried in lawsuits from this obvious discriminatory injustice? Serious answer please.

 

[royal_archer]

A heterosexual jewish couple could never get married in a Catholic church. Or most any Christian church for that matter. How is the Church not getting buried in lawsuits from this obvious discriminatory injustice? Serious answer please.

There is not a large Jewish or Protestant movement trying to destroy religious institutions.

 

[PassingThru]

There is not a large Jewish or Protestant movement trying to destroy religious institutions.

OK. How come, as far as I know, there are no lawsuits in any Church, Temple, Synagogue, with people demanding to be married who are otherwise fit? For example, different religions, refusal to raise kids in a religion, perceived incompatibility, previous marriages or living arrangements, etc.

Look, its a rhetorical question, I know. You do not see these types of issues, because the state has never been interested in forcing a religion to recognize or perform a marriage ceremony on anyone. I have not seen any compelling reason for the state to suddenly become interested.

Plus, think about it. If they wanted to sue the Church into submission, they could do it RIGHT NOW. All they would have to do is go into a Catholic Church and DEMAND that they be married. Every gay man could pair up to a lesbian, go to the Church, and ask for a wedding. They of course would be denied for any variety of reasons, we can make a list if you want. They could then sue for discrimination based on religion, race (black/white pair for example), or any other means a lawyer could come up with. Seriously think about it for a second. All religions discriminate on a whole list of things right now. Can you explain why they don’t sue the pants off the Church with all these given methods?

 

[royal_archer]

OK. How come, as far as I know, there are no lawsuits in any Church, Temple, Synagogue, with people demanding to be married who are otherwise fit? For example, different religions, refusal to raise kids in a religion, perceived incompatibility, previous marriages or living arrangements, etc.

Look, its a rhetorical question, I know. You do not see these types of issues, because the state has never been interested in forcing a religion to recognize or perform a marriage ceremony on anyone. I have not seen any compelling reason for the state to suddenly become interested.

Plus, think about it. If they wanted to sue the Church into submission, they could do it RIGHT NOW. All they would have to do is go into a Catholic Church and DEMAND that they be married. Every gay man could pair up to a lesbian, go to the Church, and ask for a wedding. They of course would be denied for any variety of reasons, we can make a list if you want. They could then sue for discrimination based on religion, race (black/white pair for example), or any other means a lawyer could come up with. Seriously think about it for a second. All religions discriminate on a whole list of things right now. Can you explain why they don’t sue the pants off the Church with all these given methods?

We have not gotten to that point on the slippery slope. First they want to mandate that the deffinition of marriage be revised and institutionalized then they will have better legal political standing to go after the Church.

washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/01/to-avoid-funding-gay-marrieds-catholic-charities-denies-benefits-to-all-spouses/

afterellen.com/node/75558

wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/methodists-sue-new-jersey-over-attempt-to-force-gay-%E2%80%9Cmarriage%E2%80%9D-at-church-owned-camp/

huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

 

[dskysmine]

We all have been cautioned against making ad hominem smears. I expect you in conversing with me to follow the rules.

Was it not you that said my argument was incomprehensible? If I wrote using all the correct grammar and no ortography mistake it seems the mistake was not on my part… unless there was some logical error, but you didn’t point that out, or even what are the requirements for marriage… maybe you can find them in the constituition or the bill of rights.

Of course. I agree.

Really?.. I thought you were going to argue against the use of the word rich for multi gender purposes or the like…

This law only covers civil marriages. Religious institutions can refuse to marry those whom they wish.

The law covers social contracts that were not created by law! The only social contract created by law was the “Civil union”. I never mentioned religion into this. I find it funny that you are asking that society recognizes same sex marriages and not religious institutions… aren’t religious people in the same society?

Please stick to sentences with subjects and predicates.

I tried but you said you didn’t understand. Maybe it’s the concepts you don’t understand??

This does not deserve a response.

Gays NEVER argue for this, and efforts for gay marriage do NOT argue for this. It is little more than a screed.

If marriages are the foundation in which society gets new members and their education, how is not what gays are arguing for? Marriage without one of the genders is in fact a discrimination against the other sex, and a big one since it is the foundation upon which society gets new members and their education!

True. So how is this relevant as a reason to deny gay marriage?

I was addressing the issue you mentioned about children not being able to choose their legal guardians etc… to which, correct me if I am wrong, you just admitted you were wrong. If you are wrong in the knowledge of your own law how do you suppose we continue the discussion of your law?

Teaching certificates and accreditation have nothing to do with gender, nor with sexual orientation.

It was an analogy… ever heard of those? If a teacher is not suitable to teach he should not be given a teaching certificate… If a couple is not suitable to marry they should not be given a marriage certificate. You do know what an analogy is don’t you?

Another smear. If you keep doing this, I will report you. If you cannot disagree in a civil manner, then you should go away from this thread.

If you do not know of something and Ignorance means: A state of being uninformed, how is it not a factual claim?

Thanks.

I see nothing here about gender (it seems scrupulously avoided, and nothing about sexual orientation. There are 54 articles to this document. None is about sexual orientation in any way.

You are most welcome.
It says nothing on sexual orientation because sexual orientation wasn’t recognized as a “right” in the UN yet, but don’t worry, the girl scouts and Hilary Clinton are working hard to change that

ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/B4462DDE-487D-4194-B0E0-193A04095819/0/HappyHealthyHot.pdf

P.S.: Just so we are being straight I was being sarcastic in my last commentary.

Take care now,
Daniel

 

[Kevin42]

We have not gotten to that point on the slippery slope. First they want to mandate that the deffinition of marriage be revised and institutionalized then they will have better legal political standing to go after the Church.

washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/01/to-avoid-funding-gay-marrieds-catholic-charities-denies-benefits-to-all-spouses/

afterellen.com/node/75558

wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/methodists-sue-new-jersey-over-attempt-to-force-gay-%E2%80%9Cmarriage%E2%80%9D-at-church-owned-camp/

huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/25/state/n155600D77.DTL&type=politics#ixzz0xgDpxqer

 

[roberthagedorn]

No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy–the mystery Saint Augustine almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.

 

[roberthagedorn]

No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy–the mystery Saint Augustine almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.