Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

  • Thread starter Thread starter secular_freedom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Of course it does.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. Your “questions” do not challenge either the validity or soundness of my argument. If you disagree, please indicate the premises or inferences that your “questions” challenge.
 
No, you didn’t answer any of it. I am saying that all of your premises are invalid because to have any meaning what-so-ever, we all must assume that homosexuality is a class of person that is deserving of special protections that are not granted to the rest of society. I will not assume that, and unless you can prove to me that a sexual appetite is enough to justify a new class of human beings, all of your premises are junk. To be able to argue something like this we have to have a common starting point, that my friend is probably impossible to have because your premisies need me (and others) to accept something that is untrue.
 
secular_freedom said:
No, it does not. Your “questions” do not challenge either the validity or soundness of my argument. If you disagree, please indicate the premises or inferences that your “questions” challenge.
Click to expand...
You just cut it out from the quote.
 
Alexander_Smith said:
No I’m saying Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate, because same-sex “marriages” wouldn’t really BE marriages. The government can’t rewrite what marriage is by allowing same-sex couples to partake in it. If they want their own false version of marriage, they can call it something else, but marriage is not for them, anymore than I can marry my goat.
Click to expand...
No church or religion has exclusive rights to the definition or control of the word “marriage.” Not in history. And not in the USA under law. You need persuasive grounds for this control.
 
JohnCS said:
No, you didn’t answer any of it. I am saying that all of your premises are invalid because to have any meaning what-so-ever,
Click to expand...
First of all, premises can’t be “invalid or valid,” only true or false. Second, my argument is logically valid since the conclusion follows for its premises. Third, the only way you can successfully attack the argument is by challenging its premises, which you haven’t done.
JohnCS said:
we all must assume that homosexuality is a class of person that is deserving of special protections that are not granted to the rest of society.
Click to expand...
My argument does not require you to assume this at all.
 
JohnCS said:
No, you didn’t answer any of it.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. You simply refused to engage my arguments. In posts 7, 8 and 11, I showed exactly how prop 8 is discriminatory against homosexuals. Why not deal with the arguments?
 
What is engaging however, is this 2002 study on homosexual behavior.

"Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.

"Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s.

“The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.”
 
The 2002 study continues:

"In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997 the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7

Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex."
 
Words from Pope Benedict:

"The homosexual inclination is however ‘objectively disordered’ and homosexual practices are ‘sins gravely contrary to chastity’.

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.

One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."
 
secular_freedom said:
What "research?.
Click to expand...
Clearly you didn’t read the article, probably because you didn’t want to. A couple of studies were referenced there.

You’re not really going to convince anyone here who is actually in touch with reality that homosexual couples are “just the same” as heterosexual couples, and thus that there is no reason for the government not to extend a title and a standing to them.

One teeny, eeny bit of difference is the exclusion of an entire gender in such coupling. The consequences of that are enormous.

Other points have been discussed on these and many, many other threads on CAF, which, since you’re so new (Wow, are you up to 22+ posts now, since your Castro Street celebration?), you wouldn’t have bothered to examine.

The person who exhibits bigotry about enitre segments of the population (in this case, believers in the unique category of male/female relationships, and who also might follow a religion) is the person you see when you look in your mirror. You have absolutely no objective understanding of the varied points, and points of view, even of the posters on this forum alone. Be careful of confusing any particular posters with others – oh, whoops, you’re the unbigoted one – no actually, you’re the one who categorizes entire groups of people. I don’t categorize individuals, unlike you. I don’t believe in condemning people for what they believe. Rational people who are well-educated in critical reasoning understand that respecting boundaries does not translate to perseuction. You, on the other hand, promote the idea of iconoclasm for the pursuit of individual pleasure at the expense of the youngest generation.

Again, I’m not going to repeat all my posting history, and I would never do so for someone who has so little respect for conversation that they want others do to their work for them, but my history in this regard is well-documented on CAF. There’s nothing on this thread or previous ones that classifies me as a bigot, but there are plenty of yours that reveal gross ignorance and intolerance of anyone who does not share your iconoclastic and anarchistic views.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Clearly you didn’t read the article, probably because you didn’t want to. A couple of studies were referenced there.
Click to expand...
Could you point to just one, please? I would really like to read it, and I am not sure what you are even referring to here in this post. But I will definitely read whatever you point to.
 
Elizabeth,

When you’re ready to challenge the argument I put forth (and not engage in irrelevant side issues and stereotypes regarding the sexual behavior of certain individuals), please proceed. That goes for you too, Barbkw.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But animals enjoy more rights that humans, why can’t they have the right to marry a human?

You kick a dog, you go to jail. You abort a baby, you are praised for exercising your right.
Click to expand...
Non-human animals enjoy far less legal protections than people or the meatpacking industry would not exist. This argument, aside from being a non sequitor is not even wrong.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
…We’re also calling the Gay Lobby on their own “facts”: that supposedly they are cough cough as-or-more-monogamous than heterosexual marriages. Really? The very recent funded research by gays themselves, which has been cited here and further discussed in that article, flatly contradicts such lies.
Click to expand...
I read the article that you linked (funded by the NIH as part of AIDS studies). It is interesting, thanks. I am not impressed with these open relationships, if that makes any difference here.

But, what do monogamy rates (or adultery rates or divorce rates or annulment rates or infertility rates, STD rates, etc.) have to do with legal access of heteros to marriage? I am fairly certain that they have no connection to hetero access to marriage, therefore why apply them only to gays?
 
secular_freedom said:
First of all, premises can’t be “invalid or valid,” only true or false. Second, my argument is logically valid since the conclusion follows for its premises. Third, the only way you can successfully attack the argument is by challenging its premises, which you haven’t done.

My argument does not require you to assume this at all.
Click to expand...
Okay, you win! Your argument is valid, as is this one:
  1. I am superman
  2. Superman can fly
  3. Therefore can fly.
This is also a valid argument…it doens’t make it true. And that is my point with yours, your premises are not true because it is neccesary to beleive homosexuality is another class of people. You can’t discriminate me because I like to wear pink and green striped pants, there are not special laws in place to protect me there are only the basic rights that all people have. Again, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals in that they can marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination there.
 
JohnCS said:
Okay, you win! Your argument is valid, as is this one:
  1. I am superman
  2. Superman can fly
  3. Therefore can fly.
This is also a valid argument…it doens’t make it true. And that is my point with yours, your premises are not true because it is neccesary to beleive homosexuality is another class of people. You can’t discriminate me because I like to wear pink and green striped pants, there are not special laws in place to protect me there are only the basic rights that all people have. Again, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals in that they can marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination there.
Click to expand...
All parties to the Cali case agreed that the law was meant to keep gays out of “marriage” status. Gays do not have to be a “protected class” in order to claim that their exclusion is unjust. The court challenge was based on due process and equal protection.

If all “Steves” were barred from marriage, they could sue and NOT have to demonstrate that “Steves” are a protected recognized group of protected persons. They merely have to argue that the exclusion is unjust for other reasons. And that is what these recent litigants did. It really did not help that the defendants presented no evidence of any harm that gay marriage has had anywhere and no evidence that reproductive ability has ever been a prerequisite for hetero marriage (issued by the state) in modern history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top