Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2017, 10:41:23 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Finally: US Supreme Court agrees to settle gay marriage dispute  (Read 1557 times)
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
January 19, 2015, 04:59:01 AM
 #21

Religious bullshit prohibitions and/or ones without any rational basis, applied to government marriage licensing to everyone except male/female adult couples, are not equal. If states don't want to abide by what they ratified, they are welcome to secede from the union entirely. CA, IL, HI, NY, CT, MA, et al, can secede from the union over refusal to not infringe the 2A they ratified and incorporated in 14A as well.

1508280083
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508280083

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508280083
Reply with quote  #2

1508280083
Report to moderator
1508280083
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508280083

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508280083
Reply with quote  #2

1508280083
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508280083
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508280083

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508280083
Reply with quote  #2

1508280083
Report to moderator
1508280083
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508280083

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508280083
Reply with quote  #2

1508280083
Report to moderator
Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
January 19, 2015, 10:50:01 PM
 #22

Religious bullshit prohibitions and/or ones without any rational basis, applied to government marriage licensing to everyone except male/female adult couples, are not equal. If states don't want to abide by what they ratified, they are welcome to secede from the union entirely. CA, IL, HI, NY, CT, MA, et al, can secede from the union over refusal to not infringe the 2A they ratified and incorporated in 14A as well.

As I explained, the states are not infringing on the 14th amendment. Equality under the law doesn't mean that the law is equally agreeable to every person, it means that every person has the right to be treated the same as another person in the same circumstance. If I am a polling official, I don't need to know your sexual orientation to approve your vote. Every man has the right to marry a woman and every woman the right to marry a man. That is equality under the law according to a plain and clear reading of the 14th Amendment.

By your logic, the states have no right to impose any law that a particular group finds unfavorable. So rich people could say they aren't equal under the law because they pay higher taxes. Should pedophiles have the right to marry a child? (I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, I am only comparing the legal logic). By your logic yes! If I replace "a man not being allowed to marry a man demonstrates that he is not equal with straight men under the law" with "a man not being allowed to marry a child demonstrates that he is not equal with other men under the law," the logic should extend, no?

Likewise, if we look at this from another angle, the amendment was not intended to apply to any group label whatsoever. After all, age is not entirely protected. Why can I not drink alcohol? I disagree with that law, but that's a legislative not a Constitutional issue. I do not have the Constitutional right to drink.

Neither you nor the courts can find proper justification for overruling our elected state officials using a plain and proper reading of the 14th amendment. The amendment's meaning does not change just because you and many others want it to. If you want gay marriage to be protected, get a Constitutional amendment passed or use legislative processes.

TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
January 19, 2015, 10:59:47 PM
 #23

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile WWW
January 19, 2015, 11:22:13 PM
 #24

Quote
By your logic, the states have no right to impose any law that a particular group finds unfavorable. So rich people could say they aren't equal under the law because they pay higher taxes. Should pedophiles have the right to marry a child? (I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, I am only comparing the legal logic). By your logic yes! If I replace "a man not being allowed to marry a man demonstrates that he is not equal with straight men under the law" with "a man not being allowed to marry a child demonstrates that he is not equal with other men under the law," the logic should extend, no?

You just did, the moment you bring peadophilia into an argument about homosexuality, you're being a fucking moron. This isn't a case of some particular group being bitchy for no reason, this is as global wide conspiracy by all religions to oppress homosexuals, it's just a fucking contract. Sure, a church can go ahead and declare that marriage between homosexuals isn't legitimate all they like, but they can't go around telling state and government what to do and yes, as someone from the UK I'm going to remind you about your own laws about seperation of church and state, we have the very same problem here where religion is constantly trying to impose it's doctrine on the rest of us.

This 'social' issue is purely an invention of religion, no one else gives a fuck save for a few homophobic cunts and it's about time they got over it and stopped being such pussies, gay marriage has been legalised already in various parts of the world. The world has not descended into chaos, peadophilia and beastality have not suddenly become legal, it's all a load of scare mongering bullshit and there is no real argument you can make against it.

If anything, I would argue that being religious is more likely to lead to peadophilia than being gay, since we all know how much Catholics like their choir boys, yes I fucking went there.
Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
January 19, 2015, 11:31:12 PM
 #25

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

Actually, none of that is the case by my logic. If the states were to "torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment" I would agree with you, but they are not. The only thing the states are doing is not allowing tax benefits/combined assets for marriages that do not meet the legal or societal definition of marriage. Not torture or punishment by any book.

Just as imposing different tax rates on different incomes and rules for different ages isn't " doing whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only," neither is banning gay marriage. You keep saying that the 14th says what it doesn't say without refuting my statement that it doesn't. If you want to debate my argument, then defend your point instead of ignoring my argument and reasserting your original position.

freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


Activity: 9001 == OP


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 01:18:09 AM
 #26


If anything, I would argue that being religious is more likely to lead to peadophilia than being gay, since we all know how much Catholics like their choir boys, yes I fucking went there.

Na lethn, if we look in the time machine back to Roman and Greek history I'm pretty sure all the Roman teachers and Greek philosophers took the cake and ate it many times before religion got into that trend.
Religion just set them straight ha-ha

By your logic, the states have no right to impose any law that a particular group finds unfavorable. So rich people could say they aren't equal under the law because they pay higher taxes. Should pedophiles have the right to marry a child? (I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, I am only comparing the legal logic). By your logic yes! If I replace "a man not being allowed to marry a man demonstrates that he is not equal with straight men under the law" with "a man not being allowed to marry a child demonstrates that he is not equal with other men under the law," the logic should extend, no?

As for the world descending into chaos, looking at middle east hatred of the west and why they will not ever become like the west is because one of the core tenets and issues of our generation is being challenged here (homosexuality) otherwise we wouldn't be having so many flamewars over it and polarization on both camps, the argument that "no one else gives a fuck save for a few homophobic cunts and it's about time they got over it " is simply untrue it's just that very strong reactionary elements set out to destroy any opposition in the gay camp to quiet any dispute, baker gets prosecuted for wedding cakes, politicians get put under a torch for gay marriage views, heck even traditional hillbillys on tv getting scolded for what was a traditional value, if anything persecution begets persecution.

It's only in the last 10 years that we have seen that attitude changing a little so its debatable at least, but far from a get over it at this point in time.

Still in a fallacy argument to your other point if we let pedophilia become legal, we arguably would see the same result as we have historically society operating normally like it is is now of course there is quantifiable evidence of that, since we only need to look back 100 years or so to see it as a common enough occurrence that was not penalized.

It's only recently in human history that we started having large debates over that particular issue, historically England started the age of consent at age 12 in 1875 and we only have seen that raised to 15-18 very recently by a historical measure.

In fact there have even been arguments for it to go down good old wiki

According to sociologist Matthew Waites, in the 1970s, a number of grass-roots political actions took place in Britain in favor of lowering the age of consent, which he described as based on claims of children's rights, gay liberation, or as a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.

Even the Gay community got in on this reform

In May 1974, the Campaign for Homosexual Equality suggested a basic age of consent of 16, but 12 "in cases where a defendant could prove the existence of meaningful consent".[17][18] In September 1974, the Sexual Law Reform Society proposed lowering the age of consent to 14, with the requirement that below the age of 18 the burden of proof that consent for sexual activities between the parties existed would be the responsibility of the older participant.

Waites, Matthew. The Age of Consent – Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship (2005), pp 122, 132–133, 220).
WAITES, Matthew (2005, op.cit., p.132).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform


This isn't a case of some particular group being bitchy for no reason, this is as global wide conspiracy by all religions to oppress homosexuals, it's just a fucking contract. Sure, a church can go ahead and declare that marriage between homosexuals isn't legitimate all they like, but they can't go around telling state and government what to do.

If anything gay rights has the long history of a value we all agreed upon as something that has been oppressed as you pointed out.
By the same token it's the same gay rights community that is telling the state and government what to do in regards to this issue so its a double sided play.

Apologies for nitpicking looked like a fun debate there anyways it's one of the more interesting issues of our time, we will see how it turns out traditionally major societal changes are due to wars, of course I doubt one issue is enough to ignite a whole flame its usually a conflation of them.

WWI : Had the artists , Wagner German Identity, Development of French Identity, and Superiority over the Russians
WWII: Sort of related
WWIII: Could be a mixture of similar flashpoints like this one either way we live in it so we will see someday for ourselves what happens.

_
Hmm small world reading the communist platform I think Razick Lethn Butter seem to all fit in here  weird
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/draft-programme/3.-immediate-demands
_

username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 01:50:55 AM
 #27

According to previous respondents, the views of “the tribe” are only as valid as they are shared (so much so, in fiction, that one must employ state to maintain them).

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


Activity: 9001 == OP


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2015, 01:55:56 AM
 #28

According to previous respondents, the views of “the tribe” are only as valid as they are shared (so much so, in fact, that one must employ state to maintain them).

For some reason when you mention tribes in a gay marriage dispute thread about the Supreme court, I am thinking of the Supreme court judges voting one party off the island unless they find the Tiki (I guess gavel of safety lol)

Darn survivor references, but I guess so opinions are only valid if your willing to share/debate them and not saying anything means nothing happens you take your chances that the outcome is in your favor.

Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
January 23, 2015, 01:53:07 PM
 #29

Quote
By your logic, the states have no right to impose any law that a particular group finds unfavorable. So rich people could say they aren't equal under the law because they pay higher taxes. Should pedophiles have the right to marry a child? (I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, I am only comparing the legal logic). By your logic yes! If I replace "a man not being allowed to marry a man demonstrates that he is not equal with straight men under the law" with "a man not being allowed to marry a child demonstrates that he is not equal with other men under the law," the logic should extend, no?

You just did, the moment you bring peadophilia into an argument about homosexuality, you're being a fucking moron. This isn't a case of some particular group being bitchy for no reason, this is as global wide conspiracy by all religions to oppress homosexuals, it's just a fucking contract. Sure, a church can go ahead and declare that marriage between homosexuals isn't legitimate all they like, but they can't go around telling state and government what to do and yes, as someone from the UK I'm going to remind you about your own laws about seperation of church and state, we have the very same problem here where religion is constantly trying to impose it's doctrine on the rest of us.

This 'social' issue is purely an invention of religion, no one else gives a fuck save for a few homophobic cunts and it's about time they got over it and stopped being such pussies, gay marriage has been legalised already in various parts of the world. The world has not descended into chaos, peadophilia and beastality have not suddenly become legal, it's all a load of scare mongering bullshit and there is no real argument you can make against it.

If anything, I would argue that being religious is more likely to lead to peadophilia than being gay, since we all know how much Catholics like their choir boys, yes I fucking went there.

Sorry for missing your post. There is only one argument here worth adressing, and that is the one regarding seperation of church and state. First of all, seperation of church and state does not prohibit religious influences of government, only church control of government and government regulation or funding of the church. Secondly, seperation of church and state is a misinterpretation of the first amendment. This is what is really says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." That's all it says.

The thing to understand about the US is that we, theoretically, have rule of law. If you don't like the Constitution, change it. Otherwise, that's too bad. You can swear at me all you want, it doesn't suddenly undo the US Constitution.

Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
January 23, 2015, 02:02:20 PM
 #30

Freedomno made a good point.

I was actually fairly sympathetic to pushes for anti-discrimination laws for gays, until they started being abused. Just a few months after passing one in Houston, a baker was sued for refusing to make a cake that said "Support Gay Marriage." What about his freedom of concience? On one hand, I don't think McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve someone just because they are gay, but I do think they should be allowed to ban a gay pride party on their property.

The gay "rights" movement is so unforgiving and darn near oppresive to anyone who holds different views right now. The CEO of Mozilla was fired for a private political donation he made over 10 years ago, seriously? What about his freedom of speech? It's worth noting that this changed my mind about campaign transparency laws requiring that donor lists be public. I now entirely oppose them.

jaysabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


★Nitrogensports.eu★


View Profile
January 23, 2015, 05:24:21 PM
 #31

The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.

what happened to separation of the church and state yet the state can force a church to wed someone if they want to or not.

This has nothing to do with forcing any church to wed anyone. It applies to instances in which states issue a marriage license.

I agree the state should not be in the business of regulating marriage, but if it's going to go that route, equal protection under the law means anyone can marry whatever gender they want. For red states that don't like that, stop issuing marriage licenses.


           █████████████████     ████████
          █████████████████     ████████
         █████████████████     ████████
        █████████████████     ████████
       ████████              ████████
      ████████              ████████
     ████████     ███████  ████████     ████████
    ████████     █████████████████     ████████
   ████████     █████████████████     ████████
  ████████     █████████████████     ████████
 ████████     █████████████████     ████████
████████     ████████  ███████     ████████
            ████████              ████████
           ████████              ████████
          ████████     █████████████████
         ████████     █████████████████
        ████████     █████████████████
       ████████     █████████████████
▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
▬▬ THE LARGEST & MOST TRUSTED ▬▬
      BITCOIN SPORTSBOOK     
   ▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄          
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█                    ▀▄          █
 █   ▀▌     ██▄        █          █              
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████▄█████████████████████▄
   ▀▄     ███████▀                  ▀██
    █      ▀█████    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
     █       ▀███   ████      ████   ██
     ▀▄        ██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
      █        ██        ▄██▄        ██
       █       ██        ▀██▀        ██
       ▀▄      ██    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
        █      ██   ████      ████   ██
         █▄▄▄▄▀██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
               ██▄                  ▄██
                ▀████████████████████▀




  CASINO  ●  DICE  ●  POKER  
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   24 hour Customer Support   

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Rishblitz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 24, 2015, 12:59:02 AM
 #32

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

the national government has been doing that for years against terrorist
Rishblitz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 24, 2015, 01:00:14 AM
 #33

Freedomno made a good point.

I was actually fairly sympathetic to pushes for anti-discrimination laws for gays, until they started being abused. Just a few months after passing one in Houston, a baker was sued for refusing to make a cake that said "Support Gay Marriage." What about his freedom of concience? On one hand, I don't think McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve someone just because they are gay, but I do think they should be allowed to ban a gay pride party on their property.

The gay "rights" movement is so unforgiving and darn near oppresive to anyone who holds different views right now. The CEO of Mozilla was fired for a private political donation he made over 10 years ago, seriously? What about his freedom of speech? It's worth noting that this changed my mind about campaign transparency laws requiring that donor lists be public. I now entirely oppose them.

do you have a link to that article sounds interesting.
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2015, 01:09:32 AM
 #34

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

the national government has been doing that for years against terrorist

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Rishblitz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
January 24, 2015, 01:25:54 AM
 #35

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

the national government has been doing that for years against terrorist

2 wrongs don't make a right.

I didn't say they are right in fact I am strongly against it I was just pointing it out though.
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


Activity: 9001 == OP


View Profile WWW
January 26, 2015, 02:25:16 AM
 #36

Freedomno made a good point.

I was actually fairly sympathetic to pushes for anti-discrimination laws for gays, until they started being abused. Just a few months after passing one in Houston, a baker was sued for refusing to make a cake that said "Support Gay Marriage." What about his freedom of concience? On one hand, I don't think McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve someone just because they are gay, but I do think they should be allowed to ban a gay pride party on their property.

The gay "rights" movement is so unforgiving and darn near oppresive to anyone who holds different views right now. The CEO of Mozilla was fired for a private political donation he made over 10 years ago, seriously? What about his freedom of speech? It's worth noting that this changed my mind about campaign transparency laws requiring that donor lists be public. I now entirely oppose them.

do you have a link to that article sounds interesting.

Sure it was one of the major talking points in Politics and Society a while back we like to talk about these things

For Mozilla
http://www.cnet.com/news/eich-resignation-as-mozilla-ceo-as-messy-as-his-appointment/

Related Bitcointalk topic
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=556419.0

In regards to the Cake there were a few on that I'll use one of mine since the search function is still disabled

For Bakers
Video of his position
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1133730.html

"We don't want to be forced to promote a cause that is against our beliefs, we should have the freedom to decline an order that is against our conscience"

The video is worth a watch

Article
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

Related Bitcointalk topics
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854351.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=923710.0


_
To link back to a joke I forgot to put in the other post
Equality for everyone except Nambla from Southpark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman_Joins_NAMBLA

They have quite a complex relationship with the LGBT community with Harry Hays a founder of the gay rights community working with them back in the 1980's they ditched them because they thought it would make them look bad, so pederasty and gay rights are related (Historical footnotes)

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!