Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 6 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 264
Thanks Tree145Thanks

Thread: Deplorable People Are Still Trying to Deprive Gays of Hard Won Rights

  1. #51
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,645
    Thanks
    1031

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    So why do you think that heterosexuals should have your back in your fight?

    If you recall, in an earlier post, I told you how gay marriage was invented by the United States Supreme Court. And, bear in mind, you are FOR claiming that the 14th Amendment is legitimate. I'd like to continue from that earlier post with what Supreme Court Justice Scalia stated with regard to this legislating from the bench:

    "Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."

    Don't you find your position a bit hypocritical given the facts presented? On what grounds would you stand against other sexual choices?
    You ask "So why do you think that heterosexuals should have your back in your fight?" What idiotic assumption are you making about me??

    You assertion about the 14th being illegitimate is just fringe crack pottery . Get over it and get over Scalia horseshit too while your at it.

    Other sexual "choices" ? Where did I say that I would stand against anything.? I did say that each can and should be considered on it's own merit and impact on society. Let me ask you, what impact has gay marriage had on society vs. say, incest or beastiality ?
    Last edited by ProgressivePatriot; 23rd December 2016 at 06:22 AM.
    Thanks from Friday13

  2. #52
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    247

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    What? 2003?? WTF George Washington?? I don't give a rodent's hind parts what he said. Completely irrelevant. As for Scalia....He is equally irrelevant, and dead. How can you quote him while ignoring what Justice Kennedy said for the majority and expect to be taken seriously?

    You're just presenting your unsupported opinion that the ruling on same sex marriage represents the creation of a new right out of thin air, and ignore the fact that, as I pointed out, is based of the body of constitutional law.

    You think it will be reversed. How is that going to happen? They can't just revisit the case at will. A new case will have to be brought and make it's way up to the SCOTUS. Never in history has a right that has been established be reversed. Not happening.
    You say 2003 WTF? So laws have a shelf life in your opinion? Does that mean gay rights expire at some point? You want a majority of the American people to support your cause, but you have no respect for the father of our country? Really?

    I give links and you say my opinion is unsupported. What? Don't you understand that when people provide links, the position IS supported? For instance, you dispute the way the Supreme Court works and tell us they cannot or will not reverse themselves. Here is your REALITY CHECK:

    10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases | HowStuffWorks

    Any chance you will ever buckle down and answer my questions?

  3. #53
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,645
    Thanks
    1031

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    You say 2003 WTF? So laws have a shelf life in your opinion? Does that mean gay rights expire at some point? You want a majority of the American people to support your cause, but you have no respect for the father of our country? Really?

    I give links and you say my opinion is unsupported. What? Don't you understand that when people provide links, the position IS supported? For instance, you dispute the way the Supreme Court works and tell us they cannot or will not reverse themselves. Here is your REALITY CHECK:

    10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases | HowStuffWorks

    Any chance you will ever buckle down and answer my questions?
    You said :
    "A nonexistent "right" for gay marriage was invented in the United States Supreme Court in 2003." That doesn't make any sense! What year was Obergefell?? And I never said that a SC decision could not be reversed. I know quite well how things work. I said it is unlikely in this case.

    A majority of Americans do in fact support the cause of marriage equality and they support they way in which it was achieved despite Washington.... and Scalia's ideas to the contrary. Deal with it.

  4. #54

  5. #55
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    247

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    You said :
    "A nonexistent "right" for gay marriage was invented in the United States Supreme Court in 2003." That doesn't make any sense! What year was Obergefell?? And I never said that a SC decision could not be reversed. I know quite well how things work. I said it is unlikely in this case.

    A majority of Americans do in fact support the cause of marriage equality and they support they way in which it was achieved despite Washington.... and Scalia's ideas to the contrary. Deal with it.
    Are you having trouble keeping up with your own thread? Do you forget between each exchange what we just discussed? Would you like me to repeat everything we've discussed each time so you don't get lost?

    In 2003 United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in a case the High Court ruled on:

    "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change"

    Do you realize that this is THREE times we've been over this? Without that invention of a new right, no court (including the United States Supreme Court) could have ruled in favor of homosexual marriage. We've discussed the downside and you used deflection against that. Are you capable of discussing this issue without partisan politics?

    Do you think it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to create new constitutional rights?

    Are they likely to reverse this case on homosexual marriages?

    Let me put it to you like this:

    Currently there are eight Justices on the Supreme Court. Four are Jewish and four Justices are Catholic. As a body they are more liberal in their interpretations on sexuality. There are no white Protestants on the Court. What happens if Trump nominates conservative white Protestants to that body? Have you read enough court cases to know which way the Court may rule in a similar case should it come up? Let's show you your inconsistencies on this. You wrote:

    "If you want to marry your mother or kid sister and feel that's you right, pursue it through the courts or legislation. I guarantee, it will not be the progressives who have your back on that." Post # 41

    So, on matters of sexuality, YOU would not have the backs of others. Again, let us revisit Scalia for the third time on this point:

    "Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable"

    Due to your deflection, we now have two questions begging for you to address them. You want to use Supreme Court created legislation from the bench to be the law; the majority of Americans to support your lifestyle; you would not stand up for the rights of the others aforementioned??? Is that not the position you've taken thus far?

  6. #56
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    51,862
    Thanks
    18490

    From
    america
    Going to be pretty freaking difficult to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

    It will require a keen, legal argument, that must prove that the right for gays to marry, is detrimental to society at large.

    I just can't see that happening.

    Now, whether Transgenders should be allowed to shower with females....that is still up for debate.

    (OH, and, while it may upset some on the left, there may be laws and/or legal decisions, that afford Christians some rights to not be forced to take part in a gay wedding ceremony.)

    But, if that is the worst you have to worry about...count yourself lucky. (People all over the globe, gay and straight, have much bigger problems.....)

  7. #57
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    51,862
    Thanks
    18490

    From
    america
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Do you think it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to create new constitutional rights?
    I don't see Gay Marriage as a "new" Constitutional Right, but, rather a right ("...the right to happiness."--HEY, that's what they say, when a marriage begins, at least....), that has been withheld from Homosexuals in the past.

    Of course, I still have to ask: What in the hell is the Federal Government doing in the Marriage business to begin with?

  8. #58
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,645
    Thanks
    1031

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Are you having trouble keeping up with your own thread? Do you forget between each exchange what we just discussed? Would you like me to repeat everything we've discussed each time so you don't get lost?

    In 2003 United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in a case the High Court ruled on:

    "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change"

    Do you realize that this is THREE times we've been over this? Without that invention of a new right, no court (including the United States Supreme Court) could have ruled in favor of homosexual marriage. We've discussed the downside and you used deflection against that. Are you capable of discussing this issue without partisan politics?

    Do you think it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to create new constitutional rights?

    Are they likely to reverse this case on homosexual marriages?

    Let me put it to you like this:

    Currently there are eight Justices on the Supreme Court. Four are Jewish and four Justices are Catholic. As a body they are more liberal in their interpretations on sexuality. There are no white Protestants on the Court. What happens if Trump nominates conservative white Protestants to that body? Have you read enough court cases to know which way the Court may rule in a similar case should it come up? Let's show you your inconsistencies on this. You wrote:

    "If you want to marry your mother or kid sister and feel that's you right, pursue it through the courts or legislation. I guarantee, it will not be the progressives who have your back on that." Post # 41

    So, on matters of sexuality, YOU would not have the backs of others. Again, let us revisit Scalia for the third time on this point:

    "Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable"

    Due to your deflection, we now have two questions begging for you to address them. You want to use Supreme Court created legislation from the bench to be the law; the majority of Americans to support your lifestyle; you would not stand up for the rights of the others aforementioned??? Is that not the position you've taken thus far?
    Now you just ranting senselessly. I've addressed every point that you made and answered your idiotic question. As for Scalia's passage, I'm pretty much ignoring it. It is out of context, you do not provide a link, or name the case. However, I happen to know that it was Lawrence, and that it was about sodomy. It had no bearing on Obergefell. It was also part of the minority opinion so that is not when the right to same sex marriage was established.

    Do I really have to keep repeating this stuff? Is it possible that you don't understand that in order for Obergefell to be overturned that a new case will have to be brought. If any state tries to pass a new law restricting same sex marriage it would be immediately struck down by lower courts that ate bound by the precedent set by Obergefell. It will be a long road indeed.

    It also seem that you are unable to understand the fact that I have not taken a position here on any other expansion of marriage rights for any other group. You're just using that crap as a red herring to muddy the waters. The topic is same sex marriage -marriage that is equal to what opposite sex couples have. Deal with it.
    Last edited by ProgressivePatriot; 23rd December 2016 at 09:11 AM.

  9. #59
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,718
    Thanks
    4301

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Do you think it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to create new constitutional rights?
    Tell us about your 15 minutes in law School. The SCOTUS apples the CONCEPTS in the constitution to circumstances that DO exist,real world.
    It's their whole PURPOSE. If only ideas of 200 yr ago mattered.. we need no SCOTUS.

  10. #60
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    247

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    I don't see Gay Marriage as a "new" Constitutional Right, but, rather a right ("...the right to happiness."--HEY, that's what they say, when a marriage begins, at least....), that has been withheld from Homosexuals in the past.

    Of course, I still have to ask: What in the hell is the Federal Government doing in the Marriage business to begin with?
    Ask the gay community these questions. It's like this plain and simple:

    Rights are divided into three basic flavors: a "right," inalienable rights and unalienable Rights.

    * a right is generally granted by government; it is mostly permission since you ask for it and it is revocable

    * an inalienable right is one we are presumed to have, but it can be given up by consent

    * Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon you at birth and are above the jurisdiction of the government (i.e. the Right to Life.)

    Gay marriage is one of those "rights" that is a mere privilege. First, the Supreme Court had to over-turn laws that made it a crime to engage in same sex acts. That paved the way for the Court invented "right." Now, gays are asking for a license in order to marry. What is the legal definition of a license?

    "The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct."

    License legal definition of license

    IF gay marriage (or marriage in general) were an inalienable right or an unalienable one, you would not need permission to do that which you have a Right to do. Just as a ten year old cannot demand permission to stay up past his parents curfew, nobody in society can demand that the people grant them permission to do any act they so desire.

    It is highly inconsistent to give the federal government control over your life and then presume you can force that government to give you what you want when you don't have the power to over-rule them. If you think you have a Right to get married, then do it. Why are you asking for permission?

    IF you choose to operate outside the parameters of the federal government and their requirements, then you can't bitch when Uncle Scam denies you any benefits. For example: Years ago my brother exited the system and got all he paid into Socialist Security back. He revoked his SSN. When he retires, he will not get the government benefits that retirees get - i.e. a Socialist Security check, food stamps, etc.

    I'm trying to understand this guy's view, but man he isn't making it easy.

Page 6 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 5th April 2016, 09:06 PM
  2. PHONY Cruz slams GAY rights--tape of him telling rich gays, he doesn't care!
    By cpicturetaker12 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 9th January 2016, 05:52 PM
  3. Replies: 95
    Last Post: 3rd May 2015, 02:02 PM
  4. Poll: 70 Percent In Jamaica Oppose Any Rights For Gays
    By freckles in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st June 2008, 10:06 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed