Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Here you go, Alma.



There you have it. Marriage is a right, and denying marriage based on race is unequal. And, I believe we will find, as is denying marriage based on sexual orientation.

Unless you'd like to argue with the Supreme Court.

Posting on page 28 of a thread.

Easy.. Didn't we have just have this argument a few pages ago about how I would suck as a lawyer because I have morals and values and would only want to free the innocent? Furthermore that a lawyer's job isn't to be concerned with any of that, but to simply argue the point, i.e. fighting for a known guilty man's innocence?

Well this is a perfect example of how I wouldn't want to be in the legal system. If what you stated above was so concrete and solid, then we wouldn't be having this debate about SSM now, would we? The answer is no. There would be no ban on SSM the second that statement was released, but that wasn't the case. Just as Catwho said that everyone knew OJ "did it", this is a great example of that.

YOU haven't proven anything, you merely quoted what others have said. I know you're thinking "It's the supreme court!!!!". Then I ask again, why are we having this debate over proposition 8?

That is because it's not about what the truth really is, but who can sell their view point better, which is exactly what you all told me earlier. When you actually give me a scenario how the law discriminates against sexuality as opposed to sex, then we can talk. When you can show me how marriage does not deny the "right of marriage" to other groups of people, then we can talk? How can this statement hold water for group x but not for group y? How is it that it's sooooo wrong to bring up bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. during a SSM argument saying that they have to fight their OWN battles? Yet, proponents will ride the coat tail of inter-racial marriage laws as it somehow supports SSM as well? It's either valid or not. You cant pick and choose when it's valid or not.

So which one is it?



None of your definitions contradicted my differentiation. You admit that it is equally discriminatory towards both races and not "equal" in it's treatment of those who love and want to marry those of another race. That latter part is indeed a form of equality, more precisely "fairness". That's the definition of the very word.

What you are doing, is exactly what I mentioned in the last page, you are purposely saying equal for fair just to confuse it with the former scenario. In fact they are two different scenarios. As long as you admit that they are equally discriminated against, that's all that I care for, you're already ahead of Belkira. By continuing to say "unequal" for the word of "Unfair" just proves my point of you people purposely trying to make the situation into something where its not.



Edited, Aug 21st 2010 9:28am by Almalieque

Edited, Aug 21st 2010 9:32am by Almalieque

You're sadly confused...

Your statement of
"Yes, it is equally discriminatory towards both races' ability to marry the other race" was my entire point that I've been arguing since the beginning. Your list of definitions did not in any way contradict any point of mine. You can try to disguise the more accurate word of "fair" with a less accurate word of "equal" all you want, but given the fact that you said that they were equally discriminated against, you supported my point. That's all I care about. You're merely calling someone unconscious when they're just sleeping.

You mean go unconscious.....

This case has to do with interracial marriage, not same-sex marriage, so that's all that was decided on. OJ's case didn't go to the Supreme Court.



Yeah. That's called "proof." Or "citation."



But that's not how our court system works. Each case is decided on it's own merits, and according to precedent. Same-sex marriage seems similar to interracial marriage to me, in that we're talking about single adult human individuals. Incest, bestiality, and polygamy all have their own issues that surround them. To me, Loving V. Virginia shows precedent for same-sex marriage, and they will most likely turn to that and similar rulings when deciding this. But the point was, you stated that marriage wasn't a right, and that interracial marriage was "equal but unfair." I proved you wrong.

So... where did you admit that you were wrong again...?

Why wait?

To clarify, I was advocating murder.

I've been away for the weekend so I've missed posting on the last couple of pages.

Well I found this little gem in yesterday's NYT's Week in Review.



Seem that in't an increase from the 25% that support SSM in 1996, when DoFMA passed. The the Headlines Says

"Times they are Changing"

My point wasn't about the Supreme Court, it was what you all argued to me the past few pages. The point you all drilled in my head that it's not about the truth, but how you argue the point. This ruling that you presented to me supports that claim. Just like it was wrong when the U.S defined black people as a fraction of a person.

So, now you're claiming that the 14th amendment was for race only. So that means, my argument about the Founding Fathers up until now didn't change the law on marriage not because it was tradition, but because they did not want to, does not support the ban on interracial marriage.

How can you claim that it's a "basic civil right" of a man and yet "deny" a man that very own right?


Maybe I shouldn't have stressed "you". Your "citation" didn't prove anything. It's like saying "John said it's true, so it's true". That's why I said that I know you're thinking it's the supreme court so therefore it must be true.



That one case allowed interracial marriage for all races even though it was really for black and white citizens. This is what you all fail to realize, which is the ONLY reason why I take place in these arguments, providing "freedoms" and "rights" to someone by a flawed argument causes a snowball effect of disaster. Once you break that "a man and a woman union", your argument has to support your preferred group alone.

This is why I differentiated arguing fairness and just saying "it's not fair". The latter is a very poor argument, which is basically what has been presented. It's a poor argument because marriage all together is not fair, so you have to argue on why your scenario is special.



Well, you're wrong. Marriage have laws and restrictions between a man and a woman. In interracial marriage, you're denying one man of one color the opportunity to marry another woman of another color. What you're trying to do with SSM is CHANGE the definition of marriage between "A man and a woman" to your made up definition.

The current law is blind to Billy's race, skin color, religion, political stances, sexuality, etc. He can marry Joanne as long as they meet all of the other criteria. The problem is the assumption that Billy wants to marry a woman in the first place, not that he is denied the right to marry. That's the difference between treating someone equally and treating them fairly.

How you fail to see that is beyond me.



Not based on your arguments for SSM they don't. You all claim that the ban on SSM was simply due to worn out tradition with no merit whatsoever, yet you make this new criteria the same exact way. Every time age is brought up, the response "they can't enter contracts" or something or another comes about. You all hide behind tradition and law to prevent other groups the same "Basic civil right" by using the same tradition that is banning SSM.

The point being in that you can't say that marriage is a "basic civil right" and can not be denied, yet deny it to others and say "well they're different". If you can deny it to other groups of people, then it is no longer a 'basic civil right that can not be denied". Assuming that most people agree to some rules and regulations, your argument for SSM can't simply be because you were left out.



I said that I wasn't going to argue the fact that if marriage was a "right" or not, hence the usage of the million quotations, to avoid this argument. Even when I told you that I wasn't arguing against that, you still kept yelling SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS!!!! Now, I probably made a comment 25 pages ago, but recently I repetitively told you that I wasn't going there.

Interracial marriage was equal but unfair. Once again, you haven't proven anything. All you have done was quote someone else saying "It's not equal nor fair". Nothing in that explanation showed how a black man was treated any differently than a white man, you know, the definition of equal. So I guess if the SCOTUS says, "Two people of the same sex does not deserve the right to marry" then you'll accept that and move on? I guess it must be true since the SCOTUS says it. I'm sure that or any other similar ruling would cause an uproar.

As stated in this very own post, you're hiding behind law when it's in your favor but going against it when it's not. That's a failing approach. Everything should be approached by logic as history has shown us that unjust laws have always had their presence.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 5:58pm by Almalieque

Eh, I live in the South. Just a very blue dot in the sea of red, is all.

I quit (again). I obviously don't know how to better explain things.