Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I find this to be true of posting on page 30 of a currently 30 page thread.

Well, yeah. Religious organizations hate us agnostics and atheists because we aren't giving them money. And we're dangerous because we spread the idea to others that not giving them money is okay with God if you believe in him, and doesn't matter one bit if you don't.

Something something small ***** joke.

Currently recoiling in horror as the average level of discourse in this thread has been raised by this comment.

So the question is now if you are a gay male would you hit on Joph?

I think this thread needs someone to post the picture of Joph holding a teabag.

This.

This thread is moving so fast/slow, that I'm having problems posting on as many pages as some of you.

Um... What part of my post suggested that I didn't understand this. Although I do note with some amusement how you added the word "absolutely" in there. That's always good for a laugh when someones berating you for not properly interpreting a quote.



No. What was being argued was that in order for discrimination on the grounds of race to be constitutionally allowable, it must meet a couple of conditions, but that the specific laws in question in Loving v Virginia did not meet those conditions, and thus the laws were in violation of the constitution.

Please tell me you understand the principle of a constitutional test?


The opinion specifically stated that *if* the discrimination was necessary to the state objective and *if* that state objective wasn't itself designed to be discriminatory, then the law would be constitutional and would stand. The primary point being that simply showing that there is discrimination isn't sufficient to prove that the law is unconstitutional. You have to show that it fails this test. But in order to determine that you must determine what the state objective is.


Is that clear? It's why I've been talking about the "purpose of the marriage laws" for years. It is the core aspect of this issue. Yet, when I bring it up, everyone wants to insist that it either doesn't matter, or that there is no state objective at all. It's amazing how I can present what I think the state objective is, and everyone leaps up to insist that that's not it, but no one can present any sort of alternative.

No one can tell me why the state created a law which establishes a marriage contract and then rewards couples who enter into that contract. Strange, don't you think?



The irony abounds. You failed to understand what I was talking about, and apparently what the court was talking about, but are so sure in your ignorance that you call me an idiot. Gotta love it!

Posting on an imaginary page in a real thread, making this more complex than necessary.

i and pi walk into a bar.

"God, I wish everyone would stop staring at us," says pi.

"Oh, be rational," replies i.

pi stops in its tracks, appalled. "Th-that's RACIST!"

Edited, Aug 24th 2010 1:10am by Kavekk

/Thread.

Wrong how? The court clearly stated the conditions under which racial discrimination could be allowed under the constitution. Several of you have argued (and I agree) that sexual orientation should be treated the same under the 14th amendment as race. Thus, the same test should apply for both.


No amount of you saying "you're wrong" over and over changes the very clear words contained in the ruling. Let me repeat it again for you:



It doesn't get any more clear than that. But maybe you honestly can't noodle it out. How about you tell the class what you think it means? Cause it sure looks to me like the court is telling us under what conditions a law would be upheld even if it discriminated on the basis of race. I might even go further and argue that the same reasoning is used to justify things like affirmative action programs, despite having a far far less clear cut non-discriminatory state objective. How can one defend a law that awards companies which hire a desirable ratio of minorities for the sole purpose of changing the ratio of minorities in the workforce but condemn one which awards couples based on their sexual makeup based on the impact their sexual activity generates (children in this case)?

In the case of affirmative action the state objective *is* discriminatory. Yet I'm sure you are fine with it, not because of an objective assessment of the law and its relevance to the 14th amendment, but because you view the issue as one of "sides", with being "pro-minority" being more important than "pro-equality". Which also explains your position with regard to this law. I'm not saying you aren't being consistent. I'm just saying that you are being consistently wrong.

You can be certified as a psychic?

I was going more with "able to recognize patterns", cause it's not exactly hard to see people taking positions which are inconsistent with any sort of objective moral examination of "equal rights", but that fit perfectly with "I want to do things that benefit groups of people I identify as victims/minorities". I'd argue that this is the one and overwhelming common factor to all liberal political arguments in fact. They aren't about equality. They aren't about rights. They aren't about the constitution, or the principles on which it was founded. And they aren't about court rulings. They are about determining which side benefits a group they've associated as needing/deserving help and supporting that side.


It's incredibly simple to see, really. Were you honestly unaware of this?

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 7:15pm by gbaji