- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#652
Aug 12 2010 at 8:36 AM
It's easiest to debate with alma when you realize that he just wants to argue, but isn't really capable of putting together a coherent post. This means that he gets to spend 90% of his posts arguing that his posts are awesome, and complaining that everyone is missing the point. When you realize this you lost all compulsion to respond to any of his posts.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#653
Aug 12 2010 at 8:45 AM
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ash,
lmao...scientist you say.
Quote:
Almalieque is really 12?
lmao...scientist you say.
#655
Aug 12 2010 at 9:57 AM
Reading the last few pages of this thread made my head hurt.
+1
+1
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
#656Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 10:19 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Actually, you can sign up as 17 now :). I just turned 26 last month.
#658
Aug 12 2010 at 10:25 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Actually, you can sign up as 17 now :).
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#659
Aug 12 2010 at 10:29 AM
Quote:
Just because that's what the people want, doesn't justify the action. History has proven that to be true. If that were not the case, everything would be settled by the nation simply voting. There had to be an actual reasoning behind the government creating or supporting the concept of handing out benefits for marriages.
Look if there was this elaborate unified reasoning, it should be fairly easy to find evidence of that right? Language surrounding the laws when they were created? Find some and defend your position.
Edited, Aug 12th 2010 11:31am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#660
Aug 12 2010 at 10:40 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Just because that's what the people want, doesn't justify the action.
Hehehe... it's nice that you think this matters. If you get enough people together to make enough noise to enact a change then the change is made. Granted, there are justifications that can be made on a benefit-by-benefit basis but there is no singular overarching "reason" except that it's what people wanted and got passed into law. Those justifications were varied and depended a lot on the specific benefit in question, many having to do with notions of sexual equality and property rights.
Quote:
I think you're denying that there was an actual reasoning behind the benefits because you fear that reasoning probably excludes same sex relationships, such as reproduction.
No, I'm denying it because it simply isn't true. Which is why Gbaji has to fall back on "But.. it's just obvious!" when asked to provide evidence that the benefits are based around that. In fact, the attorney in the Prop 8 case said the same exact thing, stating that he didn't "need" to provide evidence because it was just so obviously true. We see how well that masterful legal defense worked.
I'm not saying there has never been a justification for a specific benefit based around child rearing, I'm saying that it has never been the overarching rationale for providing legal benefits in general for married couples. When someone can provide evidence to the contrary that doesn't consist of "Just agree that it's true because it's just ever so true", there might be a debate on this point.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#661Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 10:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're almost there.. I do just like to argue, but I actually have merit in what I say...
#662
Aug 12 2010 at 10:50 AM
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not saying there has never been a justification for a specific benefit based around child rearing, I'm saying that it has never been the overarching rationale for providing legal benefits in general for married couples.
Even if it were true, unless said benefits explicitly excluded adopted children there would be no basis for excluding same-sex couples - certainly not on a federal level. Maybe in states that disallow homosexuals from adopting, because that's icky.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#663
Aug 12 2010 at 11:08 AM
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
They are not being harmed by heterosexual couples having those benefits, they are being harmed by the denial of those benefits to them.
Wait! So if we eliminated all state marriage benefits for heterosexual couples, you'd still argue we should give them to gay couples?
I'm just curious how far you'll go with this little denial you've got going on here. Can we please admit that for you and most liberals this is about identity politics and faux-equality and *not* about any actual assessment of the benefits at issue and their applicability to any given group?
How much work is it to be this stupid?
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
. Why on earth would the government create a legal status which conferred no benefits or penalties?
Seriously speaking with all jokes aside....
This is the question that no one has yet answered.
Almalieque wrote:
1. The marriage laws are equal
Edited, Aug 12th 2010 12:18pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#664
Aug 12 2010 at 11:28 AM
Actually in this you have zero merit:
*Bolded by me for emphasis.
Alma wrote:
3. Separate but Equal didn't work because it wasn't equal, not because it was separate
SCotUS in Bolling v. Sharpe wrote:
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
*Bolded by me for emphasis.
#665Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 11:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Now we're getting some where. You have made very valid points. What you are failing to realize is that your valid points are also true AGAINST you. It appears that no one really knows the rationale of governmental benefits for marriage. If this is indeed the truth, then a person can't say same sex couples can not obtain them, because they do not know the criteria. Likewise, opponents can't say that same sex couples are being DENIED those benefits because they do not know the criteria.
#666
Aug 12 2010 at 11:31 AM
This is quite a gem.
Almalieque wrote:
3. Separate but Equal didn't work because it wasn't equal, not because it was separate
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#667
Aug 12 2010 at 11:45 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Fantasy World: Society and government supports what the majority of the people want.
Real World: Life is political and people don't like unwanted attention. If a certain percentage of people make enough noise with some form of supporting logic, change will occur regardless if it is the minority or the majority.
Real World: Life is political and people don't like unwanted attention. If a certain percentage of people make enough noise with some form of supporting logic, change will occur regardless if it is the minority or the majority.
No, in the real world you have people in office who want to stay in office. Do some research around some of the major legislation regarding benefit changes. You'll see they tend to happen during times of political power shifts such as the Progressive Era or the early 1970s.
Quote:
It appears that no one really knows the rationale of governmental benefits for marriage.
Not true. You can go back and research the laws, newspaper articles from the time explaining what groups wanted, read interviews, Congressional records, etc. However, you need to do this each time and not pretend that once counts for all.
I started to do this once until Gbaji's sole response was "Yeah, they say that but... really... it was for the children! It's just obvious!!" I've no interest in doing it a second time but I'm content to say you're wrong on that point whether you agree with me or not.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#668
Aug 12 2010 at 11:47 AM
Almalieque wrote:
You can say that "whatever the criteria is isn't fair", but that wont get you anywhere. If we can't find out the original rationale, then we have to re-invent the wheel. This means redefining what a marriage should be. Doing this, goes right back to the original question, "Why should the government care that two people are in love any way?"
People share rooms and live together all of the time with no contracts. Even if people wanted contracts to cover property, they can do that without binding themselves together as husband and wife.
Traditionally only one individual in a two adult family worked. The other was dependent. So how did the state deal with fairly taxing the populace? They'd have a family unit tax. Traditionally family has first rights over family - deciding who gets buried where, when to pull the plug, etc etc. The state has to have a way of granting these rights and responsibilities to someone. While they could have decided that the state gets to be the only one that can make decisions for an individual that can no longer make their own decisions, they recognized that it would be fool-hearty to do so. The individual who loves and grows and lives with you is probably best suited to make decisions on your behalf.
I think the change from fifty years ago is the recognition that two same-sex individuals are just as capable of running a family unit as two opposite sex individuals. Once that was realized the reasons for discriminating against them fly out the window.
Edited, Aug 12th 2010 7:48pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#669Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 12 2010 at 11:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That is the argument that they used to gain access to those schools. That's because they know how to form a logical argument. What the people wanted was equality not to be integrated, but they weren't going to win arguing for better schools. So, they made the argument that it was inherently unequal to segregate the people, by doing so, they will have access to EQUAL schools. That is a much stronger argument. Yes, there was wrong in the segregation, but the goal was equality.
#670
Aug 12 2010 at 12:02 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Don't believe me, read or watch the documentary of that court trial. The argument came about solely because the schools were not equal. The people used the psychological approach of black students feeling less of a person due to segregation, which was true. This was only true because of the time they were in, they lived in a very racist time where the segregation SUPPORTED the belief. Now a days, black students pay MORE money to go to a HBCU and they don't feel inferior to anybody
I've talked to some relatives who went to segregated schools and they all say the same thing, that people didn't want to be integrated, they just wanted equality. Think about it, if you've been oppressed by race x, would you be all happy and joyous to be friends with them? NO, there was hate coming from both sides.
I've talked to some relatives who went to segregated schools and they all say the same thing, that people didn't want to be integrated, they just wanted equality. Think about it, if you've been oppressed by race x, would you be all happy and joyous to be friends with them? NO, there was hate coming from both sides.
#671
Aug 12 2010 at 12:19 PM
Jophiel wrote:
No, in the real world you have people in office who want to stay in office. Do some research around some of the major legislation regarding benefit changes. You'll see they tend to happen during times of political power shifts such as the Progressive Era or the early 1970s.
Errr.. standing up for something you or the population don't necessarily believe in just to stay in office is being POLITICAL.... You see it every presidential election time. You'll have a candidate who dances around questions in order not to offend anyone, especially if it contradicts majority of their party.
As much as people like to play the Liberal vs Conservative game, there is really no right or wrong answer, just a difference of opinion. If it were truly up to the people, the president really wouldn't matter because everything would be taken to a vote by the people. That's not the case because the political party in office has some influence. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in politics, because I'm not, but I do know that much.
Jophiel wrote:
Not true. You can go back and research the laws, newspaper articles from the time explaining what groups wanted, read interviews, Congressional records, etc. However, you need to do this each time and not pretend that once counts for all.
I started to do this once until Gbaji's sole response was "Yeah, they say that but... really... it was for the children! It's just obvious!!" I've no interest in doing it a second time but I'm content to say you're wrong on that point whether you agree with me or not.
I started to do this once until Gbaji's sole response was "Yeah, they say that but... really... it was for the children! It's just obvious!!" I've no interest in doing it a second time but I'm content to say you're wrong on that point whether you agree with me or not.
That doesn't make any sense.
We either know the rationale or we don't.
If we don't know the rationale, then we recreate it.
If we do know the rationale, then either same sex is included in the rationale or it is not.
If same sex is included in the rationale, then the argument is over, they are included. *After* this time, opponents can suggest alternate marriage laws excluding them.
If same sex is not included in the rationale, then the argument is over, they are excluded. *Afterwards* opponents can suggest alternate marriage laws including them.
If it were truly up to the people, everyone would vote and it would done.
Given the simple fact that this particular case keeps coming back up leads me to disagree with your claims.
#672
Aug 12 2010 at 12:20 PM
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
It's not even been a lifetime since the Civil Rights thing passed, and we now have a black president.
Someone pointed out to me not to long ago that, had MLK not been assassinated, he'd be 81 today and quite possibly still alive and with us. Reading about the history of the Civil Rights movement, you feel like it's practically ancient history but it's definitely not the case.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673
Aug 12 2010 at 12:25 PM
Ash wrote:
The powers that be decided it was high time that the races be jammed together, work out their differences, and move the **** on. I'd say things are progressing fairly well along that vein. It's not even been a lifetime since the Civil Rights thing passed, and we now have a black president. When more and more of the racist prick holdovers from the era die out, and more and more of their children wake up from the idiocy their parents taught them, progress will continue to be made. So yes, it needed to happen when it happened.
I never argued that it shouldn't have happened. I mean, if we are playing that game, African empires shouldn't have ever been robbed from the beginning. My point was simply that Black Americans simply wanted equal rights and was less concerned about integration.
I don't even want to derail this argument on President Obama......
#674
Aug 12 2010 at 12:26 PM
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
. Why on earth would the government create a legal status which conferred no benefits or penalties?
Seriously speaking with all jokes aside....
This is the question that no one has yet answered.
(The answer is "because government officials like to make you fill out paperwork just to give you a small sense of how boring their job is".)
#675
Aug 12 2010 at 12:30 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Errr.. standing up for something you or the population don't necessarily believe in just to stay in office is being POLITICAL.... You see it every presidential election time. You'll have a candidate who dances around questions in order not to offend anyone, especially if it contradicts majority of their party.
You're kind of just babbling at this point.
Quote:
We either know the rationale or we don't.
We know there's no overarching rationale to "let's make sure they get benefits!". We can investigate what the specific rationale for each independent benefit was. Amusingly, this is the point where the "children!" argument falls apart and we dig back in on "It's just so OBVIOUS!!"
Quote:
If same sex is included in the rationale, then the argument is over, they are included. [...] If same sex is not included in the rationale, then the argument is over, they are excluded.
Except the argument used is one of child-rearing. If the rationale does not include child-rearing, there is no reason to exclude same sex couples. Really, it's not a good reason anyway since, as pointed out ad infinitum, SSM couples can still get their hands on l'il tricycle motors through other avenues. Arguments regarding distribution of property for instance should apply equally to any gender coupling unless there's an explicit reason given why it wouldn't.
Anyway, this is becoming distinctly Gbaji-esque so unless you have some new point to bring up I haven't seen before I'm done with the heavy lifting.
Edited, Aug 12th 2010 1:31pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#676
Aug 12 2010 at 12:35 PM
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. The marriage laws are equal
If that's a point being missed, explain it, or refer to a previous explanation.
Sorry, I overlooked this..
I would refer to it, but I'm lazy.
Equal doesn't mean fair. Everyone is equally discriminated against in the same way. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals both fall under the same marriage law restrictions. The problem is, those restrictions are not fair to homosexuals because of their desired significant others. That is a huge difference. Meaning, you can argue that the laws are not fair, but you can't pretend that heterosexuals can marry whom ever and whatever they want, but homosexuals can't. They are all bound to the same rules.
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 260
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC