California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[aurik]

Ok thank you. I get it. I'm a bigot. Now GTFO so I can debate this with people who are actually arguing for points rather than my label.

Your points were argued.

It was pointed out that the justification that you are using is the same justification that was used to prevent interracial marriages, which was deemed in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

You haven't yet explained why that shouldn't be the case with homosexual marriages.

[Tristam]

Ok thank you. I get it. I'm a bigot. Now GTFO so I can debate this with people who are actually arguing for points rather than my label.

lol what points? You're a bigot and we're not, what's to argue?

[Alleya]

Ok thank you. I get it. I'm a bigot. Now GTFO so I can debate this with people who are actually arguing for points rather than my label.

Your points earn your label.

[archibaldcrane]

Ok thank you. I get it. I'm a bigot. Now GTFO so I can debate this with people who are actually arguing for points rather than my label.

You refuse to acknowledge that the inability to marry a woman based on gender makes marriage unequal and discriminatory - you hear the valid points being made and don't acknowledge or counter them other than putting your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALA both can marry opposite sex i can't hear you LALALALA."

Refusing to address actual points being made by me doesn't mean I'm not making them.

[Beckwin]

So Valisk and others citing selective service (which again doesn't address that women can marry men but men cannot marry men)... what is your legitimate, non-religious reasoning for this form of gender discrimination? At least for selective service, there's the issues of sustaining a population for a prolonged war and certain physical issues regarding females on a battlefield. although really there are enough non-direct combat roles more than acceptable for women that I think selective service should probably be extended. an interesting note is that in a Communist system the whole problem can be avoided by drafting women for war industry positions, but that's neither here nor there.

Also note that one controversial standing doesn't justify another, especially when trying to convince people who don't necessarily agree with either.

[Valisk]

@ Alleya & Tristam: Regardless of my label stick to the fuckin debate at hand. If you have nothing to add other than call me names then gtfo. This is a topic I'm very interested in and trying to get all points of views on it.

Your points were argued.

It was pointed out that the justification that you are using is the same justification that was used to prevent interracial marriages, which was deemed in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

You haven't yet explained why that shouldn't be the case with homosexual marriages.

I thought I countered this by saying that certain things are reserved for certain people? What was your counter for my post about" "collecting unemployment check after getting off work" ?

[archibaldcrane]

I thought I countered this by saying that certain things are reserved for certain people?

So what group of people is marriage reserved for, exactly?

Serious question.

[Tristam]

I thought I countered this by saying that certain things are reserved for certain people? What was your counter for my post about" "collecting unemployment check after getting off work" ?

You have every right to get fired from your job and become unemployed.

edit: fired vs. quit

[Valisk]

So Valisk and others citing selective service (which again doesn't address that women can marry men but men cannot marry men)... what is your legitimate, non-religious reasoning for this form of gender discrimination? At least for selective service, there's the issues of sustaining a population for a prolonged war and certain physical issues regarding females on a battlefield. although really there are enough non-direct combat roles more than acceptable for women that I think selective service should probably be extended.

My whole point for citing the selective service was just to show that men and women dont ALWAYS do the same things as men like some people are making it out as. It was just an example of one thing that men are required by law to do and women are not. We don't require them to register nor do we place them on the front lines (unless they volunteer). I was just using it as part of my argument, I don't necessarily believe it.

[Elesirdur]

So Valisk and others citing selective service (which again doesn't address that women can marry men but men cannot marry men)... what is your legitimate, non-religious reasoning for this form of gender discrimination? At least for selective service, there's the issues of sustaining a population for a prolonged war and certain physical issues regarding females on a battlefield. although really there are enough non-direct combat roles more than acceptable for women that I think selective service should probably be extended. an interesting note is that in a Communist system the whole problem can be avoided by drafting women for war industry positions, but that's neither here nor there.

Also note that one controversial standing doesn't justify another, especially when trying to convince people who don't necessarily agree with either.

Funny you mention communists, since in the history of the 20th Century the only nations to field legetimate female soldiers (as in part of an organized, state-sanctioned military not geurilla fighters or revolutionary forces) were communist nations. During the Great Patriotic War, as WWII is known in Russia, women took to the battlefield as well as worked in war factories and in the rear lines. There were even a few squadrons of female-only combat pilots. The most famous being the "Night Witches" who were a night-fighter squadron - the Luftwaffe had a particulairly high respect for them for their flying prowress and combat effetivness.

That little historical note aside I don't see much reason why, in post-modern nations why women of service age are not elligable for the draft or "selective service" as the phrase goes in the US. While there are biological (reproductive and other) and social "impedements" to women serving, I think it's an awfully ancient concept that only men are required to fight. Aside from menstruating (and that's highly debatable and I would argue a non-material issue), there's nothing that makes a woman any less or more capable than a man at being a soldier in a modern army. Any arguments about the "fairer sex" or "emotional and physical fraility" are totally meaningless logical arguments and rely only on old social precedent of gender divisions in societies around the world.

[Valisk]

So what group of people is marriage reserved for, exactly?

Serious question.

That's the thing, it's reserved for ANYBODY willing to marry the opposite sex. I have the exact same right to marry a woman just like a homosexual has the exact same right to marry a women. If he chooses not to exercise his right to marry a woman then that's his personal decision.

[Valisk]

You have every right to get fired from your job and become unemployed.

edit: fired vs. quit

Right. So getting fired is a stipulation to collecting unemplyment just like opposing sexs is a stipulation to getting married.

[Correction]

That's the thing, it's reserved for ANYBODY willing to marry the opposite sex. I have the exact same right to marry a woman just like a homosexual has the exact same right to marry a women. If he chooses not to exercise his right to marry a woman then that's his personal decision.

Henry Ford used to say you could have any color car you wanted, as long as it was black. The illusion of choice is not the same as actual liberty.

[Tristam]

Right. So getting fired is a stipulation to collecting unemplyment just like opposing sexs is a stipulation to getting married.

you're just repeating the same thing over and over

you believe some people should have rights while others should not based on sexuality.

You're adding nothing new to the discussion, you're not debating anything, you're just saying "I'm a bigot" a different way each time.

get it?

edit: And it's not that one is a prerequisite for the other. Anyone can collect unemployment regardless of their race gender etc. Yet you're explicitly denying a set of rights to one group based on sexuality.

[aurik]

My whole point for citing the selective service was just to show that men and women dont ALWAYS do the same things as men like some people are making it out as. It was just an example of one thing that men are required by law to do and women are not. We don't require them to register nor do we place them on the front lines (unless they volunteer). I was just using it as part of my argument, I don't necessarily believe it.

And lots of people, me included, think that selective service should be extended to include women where it isn't logistically impractical. And that makes it a terrible example.

I thought I countered this by saying that certain things are reserved for certain people? What was your counter for my post about" "collecting unemployment check after getting off work" ?

The 14th amendment explicitly forbids denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since any person--gay, straight, white, black, male, female, muslim, christian, atheist, pastafarian--is treated equally under unemployment laws, there's no conflict here.

The difference with marriage law is that it is a conflict when you say men and women have different rights on who they may marry. Men may marry women, whereas women may not. That's not equal protection under the law.

[archibaldcrane]

Valisk, you make it clear that marriage is for everyone as long as they marry the opposite sex, and you state that this is similar to other situations where discrimination occurs - but why do you feel that it should be this way? We get that it is this way, but why should it be?

Why -should- discrimination be written into the state constitution?

[Valisk]

Henry Ford used to say you could have any color car you wanted, as long as it was black. The illusion of choice is not the same as actual liberty.

I see what you're saying (and love that quote) but it's a little different. If you applied that to today, you'd have the liberty to choose from millions of makes, models, and years. Sure it would still be black, but there are millions of other options. Black being the opposite sex. Makes, models, years being a number of other characteristics to choose from.

[meson]

Valisk, do you believe people are born gay or choose to be gay?

[Yuri-G]

Orly?

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

BEST POST EVER, MARRY ME

Oh wait, nevermind

[Julian]

Wow, you're pretty fucking thick.

Do me a favor and go to page 5, and honestly answer the super simple question that I posted.