Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

  • Thread starter Thread starter secular_freedom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
secular_freedom said:
Thank you, for being so honest – I’ve been waiting to see this admission. At least now people can see that for you, this debate isn’t about evidence (as you “couldn’t care less what evidence was presented” in court). Please continue with your smears.
Click to expand...
His posts, on my page now, are just strings of thin muted lines. Don’t see ‘em no mo’. 🤷

Nobody, despite ALL the claims here, has shown any detrimental evidence following from gay marriage. Just like in the court case: no evidence.
 
no mas. am going to pray the rosary with my family.

my point in all of this was to show where gay marriage leads. gay marriage is not about the right to sleep or live with whomever you want. it’s not about the right to contract. it’s not about the right to visit a friend in the hospital, or to leave property to a friend upon death. it’s not even about the tax code.

it’s about a denial of one of the first lessons of genesis–“he made them male and female.” gay marriage stands for the proposition that men and women are completely fungible. a kid is just as well off being raised by two moms as by a mom and a dad. we don’t need a study to show that this is nonsense. our own experience tells us that it is.

fortunately, every time this is on the ballot, it loses. leftist judges can promote a liberal cause for awhile, but the people ultimately have their say.
 
captainmike said:
you people keep asking for empirical evidence that gay marriage/adoption is harmful. my point is, it hasn’t been tested long enough for there to be much proof.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have no evidence. Nor do you have any evidence that same-sex marriage (or gay adoption) will likely lead to some alleged harm. Hence you can provide no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. All you want to do is gin up fear about what might happen based on completely unfounded speculation and stereotypes.
captainmike said:
after several generations, evidence would undoubtedly show that kids raised by homosexuals (especially boys raised by two women) would be more prone to depression, crime, alcohol and drug use, etc. there’s just no doubt that a boy needs a male influence. a boy raised by two women will have difficulty.
Click to expand...
I hope you noticed the incoherency in your statements. Above, you admitted that there is no evidence to show that gay marriage will be harmful to children, but here, you’re contending what the evidence in the future would “undoubtedly” show. How can you know what the evidence in the future would “no doubt” show if there is no current evidence to show that gay marriage would be harmful to children? What evidence are you relying on that would “undoubtedly” show this? (My question actually presupposes that you’re relying on evidence, but in reality, I’m being too charitable).
 
captainmike said:
no mas. am going to pray the rosary with my family.

my point in all of this was to show where gay marriage leads. gay marriage is not about the right to sleep or live with whomever you want. it’s not about the right to contract. it’s not about the right to visit a friend in the hospital, or to leave property to a friend upon death. it’s not even about the tax code.

it’s about a denial of one of the first lessons of genesis–“he made them male and female.” gay marriage stands for the proposition that men and women are completely fungible. a kid is just as well off being raised by two moms as by a mom and a dad. we don’t need a study to show that this is nonsense. our own experience tells us that it is.

fortunately, every time this is on the ballot, it loses. leftist judges can promote a liberal cause for awhile, but the people ultimately have their say.
Click to expand...
So again it just boils down to a religious belief when you blow away all the fluff
Stop injecting your religion into this debate. Not everyone is a Catholic. I prefer to have debates about the world we live in and not in the ethereal realm. You are making naked assertions and then start quoting Genesis and place it on top of your fallacious argument like a jewel in the Crown of Bigotry. Just admit your opposition is based on your religion and not any data already!
 
secular_freedom said:
… What evidence are you relying on that would “undoubtedly” show this? (My question actually presupposes that you’re relying on evidence, but in reality, I’m being too charitable).
Click to expand...
“Dogma-in-disguise” has become my term for it.
 
captainmike said:
the rational basis is that men and women are different. everybody knows that to be true. but gay marriage proponents such as you deny the obvious.
Click to expand...
Try again. The fact that men and women are different is not a basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. How does your conclusion even follow? You need to articulate this “rational basis” more clearly.
 
secular_freedom said:
try again. The fact that men and women are different is not a basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. How does your conclusion even follow? You need to articulate this “rational basis” more clearly.
Click to expand...
it is a basis for allowing adoption agency owners to discriminate in favor of heteros!!! Gay marriage will make this impossible.
 
secular_freedom said:
if there is no current evidence to show that gay marriage would be harmful to children?
Click to expand...
i’m going to say it again, hopefully for the last time, that there is a ton of empricial evidence that boys without fathers don’t do as well, in lots of ways. this empirical evidence would support a conclusion that two women raising a boy would not be as good as a man and a woman doing so. if you can’t understand that, i can’t help you. you are blinded by your ideology.

again, i am pleased that everybody gets to see where gay marriage leads. “male and female”? meaningless, they say.
 
Oresteian said:
So again it just boils down to a religious belief when you blow away all the fluff
Stop injecting your religion into this debate. Not everyone is a Catholic. I prefer to have debates about the world we live in and not in the ethereal realm. You are making naked assertions and then start quoting Genesis and place it on top of your fallacious argument like a jewel in the Crown of Bigotry. Just admit your opposition is based on your religion and not any data already!
Click to expand...
why don’t you admit that your belief is based upon your atheism?
 
Every man is entitled to a wife (woman) and every woman is entitled to a husband(man). How is this a violation of the equal protection clause? This is a huge example of convoluted logic.:mad:
 
captainmike said:
it is a basis for allowing adoption agency owners to discriminate in favor of heteros!!! Gay marriage will make this impossible.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the issue of gay adoption with gay marriage. If the science really says that children raised by heterosexual couples generally do better (because of the gender diversity in the male/female pairing), then I have no problem giving preferences to heterosexual couples on the issue adoption. (But the science does not say this, as far as I know, so your whole point is moot). But this is not to say that children raised by gay couples can’t do well either, or that gay couples shouldn’t be able to adopt. The proper raising of children consists of many factors, and the gender of the parents is only one factor (if it is a factor) among many.
 
secular_freedom said:
You try too hard. Of course, this is understandable given your refusal to actually engage in the discussion at hand, and so naturally, you feel impulsed to come at me rhetorically. I get it, I really do.

Let’s look at some of your claims against me.

Apparently, I’m not “interested in genuine intellectual debate,” or the “logic of argument.”

Apparently, I’ve ignored and dismissed responses to specific points I made.

Apparently, I claimed that “no one” is responding to my points.

Apparently, I put forth “erroneous and non-legal definitions,” and then “merely discredit” posters who refuse to accept them.

If you ever feel the inclination, perhaps you may even attempt to substantiate these assertions (however, you won’t). But let’s not kid ourselves about what you’re doing: you’re throwing around baseless accusations in the hope that no one will notice they’re completely baseless. Just thought I point this out to the general reader. Please continue!
Click to expand...
Actually anyone can substantiate these assertions simply by going back to page 1 and reading through the thread.
 
captainmike said:
why don’t you admit that your belief is based upon your atheism?
Click to expand...
I am a noncognitivist 😛 In any case my views on religion really do not inform my ethical and social views the same as your religion does for you. It’s really two different worlds, as it were.

My views on same sex marriage are more or less based on the notion that everyone should be treated EQUALLY. I do not have such prior biases based on dogma as you do.
 
captainmike said:
i’m going to say it again, hopefully for the last time, that there is a ton of empricial evidence that boys without fathers don’t do as well, in lots of ways. this empirical evidence would support a conclusion that two women raising a boy would not be as good as a man and a woman doing so. if you can’t understand that, i can’t help you. you are blinded by your ideology.
Click to expand...
Well, the reason I can’t “understand” this is because your conclusion is based on fallacious reasoning. You want to argue:
  1. Based on the evidence, boys don’t do well without fathers.
  2. Hence, a boy raised by a lesbian couple won’t do well.
The problem with this argument is that (1) is ambiguous. (1) could mean: Based on the evidence, boys don’t do well without fathers in households where children are raised by one female parent. Or: Based on the evidence, boys don’t do well without fathers in households where children are raised by multiple female parents.

Your argument is valid only if we adopt the second reading of (1), but of course, I doubt you can supply evidence for it.
captainmike said:
again, i am pleased that everybody gets to see where gay marriage leads. “male and female”? meaningless, they say.
Click to expand...
I get it, you’re great at intentional misrepresentation. Please show us something else.
 
Betterave said:
Actually anyone can substantiate these assertions simply by going back to page 1 and reading through the thread.
Click to expand...
Then do it. What’s stopping you? (I know, it’s just too “obvious” right?)
 
secular_freedom said:
Well, the reason I can’t “understand” this is because your conclusion is based on fallacious reasoning. You want to argue:
  1. Based on the evidence, boys don’t do well without fathers.
Click to expand...
Of course, what the evidence shows most of all, is simply that boys don’t do so well (check crime and drug use and early death statistics) whether they have two parents or not (and of course, ALL boys have two biological parents, and virtually every single one of all time was raised by a hetero parent or two).

We should make the law that boys can’t be raised at all. Let’s get to the root of the problem, you know, statistically. Make A Brave New World. :rolleyes:
 
captainmike said:
i’m going to say it again, hopefully for the last time, that there is a ton of empricial evidence that boys without fathers don’t do as well, in lots of ways. this empirical evidence would support a conclusion that two women raising a boy would not be as good as a man and a woman doing so. if you can’t understand that, i can’t help you. you are blinded by your ideology.

again, i am pleased that everybody gets to see where gay marriage leads. “male and female”? meaningless, they say.
Click to expand...
Prove it. And wholly irrelevant to the debate resolution. Not every person who gets married wants to have kids in the first place, so why the restrictions on same sex and not on heterosexuals?
 
larkin31 said:
That was pasted four pages ago, and you have given no real answer at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah, four pages and a few hours! I’ve finally caught up however. I have given real answers, very clear and obvious ones. 😉 Now I will go back and reply to those who have attempted to undermine those answers.
secular_dude: Then do it. What’s stopping you? (I know, it’s just too “obvious” right?)
Click to expand...
Actually I’ve already done it. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top