toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In!Every day we will post a new topic and we want to get your comments on that topic. The topic could be about literally anything from the vague to the specific, important or trivial. The TOL membership can take that topic and run with it!
Location: Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
Rep Power: 20344
Atheist
Pinko Commie
Slogan/motto:
Really?
Reputation:
July 30th, 2011, 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrysostom
but we are not created equal
one can have a baby and the other cannot
. . . that isn't what the phrase means . . .
. . . everyone shares the same "rights" . . . as the Declaration of Independence says . . . "that among these (rights, SH) are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".
Quote:
the one that can have a baby needs the other to get one
. . . really? . . . so much for in-vitro fertilization . . . .
Quote:
and
you need both of them to protect it
. . . which is demonstratively not true.
Quote:
don't you think there is an overwhelming/compelling societal interest in this?
. . . no . . . but one of your over riding themes is to recycle your inane assertions.
"The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."
We are before the law/or that was the intent we struggle toward, to our credit.
Quote:
one can have a baby and the other cannot
Untrue, but off point on the right of contract, since those who can procreate within the bounds of a committed relationship, without resorting to surrogacy, frequently choose not to and needn't to marry/contract.
Quote:
the one that can have a baby needs the other to get one
and
you need both of them to protect it
don't you think there is an overwhelming/compelling societal interest in this?
As I've explained more than once, that isn't how you apply the standard. We are equal in right. To abrogate, to take from someone their otherwise unobstructed right, to put them in an unequal position in terms of the exercise of that right, to deny them a thing someone else is allowed by right, you must find a compelling interest that overwhelms THEIR otherwise unobstructed usage.
That means you have to advance an overwhelming (and legally rare) interest in DENYING the homosexual couple the right to contract as the heterosexual couple can. That is, there must be something in allowing the contract between them that is threatening/dangerous to the Republic and demonstrably so, to the point where the abrogation of right is necessitated.
So when we wanted, as a nation, to inter people of Japanese ancestry, denying them due process among other rights, we had to show a compelling state interest to justify the abrogation. Some advanced our inability to distinguish the saboteur from the loyal American, that to allow many near cousins to our enemy to move about freely would pose a danger to our military forces and capability. And the danger posed by the emotions of Americans in the wake of Pearl Harbor to those same citizens was cited by some as a part of the necessity.
Location: Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
Rep Power: 20344
Atheist
Pinko Commie
Slogan/motto:
Really?
Reputation:
July 30th, 2011, 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Try again.
. . . oh . . . don't worry . . . he will.
. . . but it won't be something he hasn't already used 1,000x before.
"The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."
Location: Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
Rep Power: 20344
Atheist
Pinko Commie
Slogan/motto:
Really?
Reputation:
July 30th, 2011, 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter
. . . oh . . . don't worry . . . he will.
. . . but it won't be something he hasn't already used 1,000x before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrysostom
so where did marriage come from?
it goes way back before there was a constitution
but
not before there were lawyers
prostitutes and lawyers could be the oldest professions
they are needed to get around the original intent
. . . "Curse my metal body. I wasn't fast enough".
"The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."
Location: Somewhere out there beneath the pale moonlight.
Rep Power: 20344
Atheist
Pinko Commie
Slogan/motto:
Really?
Reputation:
July 30th, 2011, 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrysostom
smart enough is better
. . . well . . . obviously you're the exception . . .
. . . otherwise you would have understood the arguments against your religious dogma relative to "created equal before the law" by now.
. . . . . .
"The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
July 30th, 2011, 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrysostom
so where did marriage come from?
it goes way back before there was a constitution
but
not before there were lawyers
prostitutes and lawyers could be the oldest professions
they are needed to get around the original intent
Hey Chrys, what is your problems with lawyers? Does it bother you that much that they have a superior education and understanding of the law than you do?
Hey Chrys, what is your problems with lawyers? Does it bother you that much that they have a superior education and understanding of the law than you do?
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
July 30th, 2011, 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrysostom
the judge and the lawyers distorted the process
nothing new here
and
you can't blame the jurors
Actually, I, like you so often do, can blame anyone I chose to blame. The lawyers job is to present the evidence. The jurors job is to hear the evidence and decide on that basis if the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's my understand that the main reason the verdict was decided as it was is because the evidence was too muddled to show an accurate story of how the little girl died.
Why are you so lazy when it comes to using your intellect, Chrys?
.
. . .
Linear Mode
