Chicago Bans, and Gets Sued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]

So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]

So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]

How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]

How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]

I found this:

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/quote]

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say right, only the Chief Justice does. So, again I’m not sure how the 14th Amendment gives persons the right to get married, it clearly states “privileges” which are different than rights.[/quote]
Given that it is he who interprets the laws I would say that his opinion means more than ours. [/quote]

Okay, let’s not discount his interpretation. He of course is right, that the 14th Amendment defends interracial marriage. I can admit that, however, even the Chief Justice doesn’t say the individual right. Though, how does the defense of interracial marriage correspond to an individual’s right to marry?

102

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.
[/quote]

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?

103

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

I don’t think Sloth has claimed this to be true.

104

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.
[/quote]

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Besides being, oh, I don’t know the smallest unit capable of bearing and rearing it’s own biological children (the future taxpayer and labor force) in an intact home? The best environment for producing law-abiding taxpayers, laborers, and business owners. Reproductive sexes. Orderly home.

Here’s a mental exercise I will continue to repeat over and over. Imagine heterosexuality vanishing tomorrow. Now imagine homosexuality vanishing. One would be a disaster, the other an oddity to be speculated over at coffee shops across the world. You know which is which. It pains me that you actually asked that question, though. I’ll chalk this question up to stubbornness (not wanting to concede a strong point).

105

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.
[/quote]

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Besides being, oh, I don’t know the smallest unit capable of bearing and rearing it’s own biological children (the future taxpayer and labor force) in an intact home? The best environment for producing law-abiding taxpayers, laborers, and business owners. Reproductive sexes. Orderly home.

Here’s a mental exercise I will continue to repeat over and over. Imagine heterosexuality vanishing tomorrow. Now imagine homosexuality vanishing. One would be a disaster, the other an oddity to be speculated over at coffee shops across the world. You know which is which. It pains me that you actually asked that question, though. I’ll chalk this question up to stubbornness (not wanting to concede a strong point).
[/quote]

Talk about a classical straw man , The only way heterosexuals would disappear would be to annihilate man kind and probably the same could be said for homosexuals

106

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.
[/quote]

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Besides being, oh, I don’t know the smallest unit capable of bearing and rearing it’s own biological children (the future taxpayer and labor force) in an intact home? The best environment for producing law-abiding taxpayers, laborers, and business owners. Reproductive sexes. Orderly home.

[/quote]

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? While we are at it they should probably handle our healthcare too, since they know whats best for us and all. After all, the smallest unit capable of raising children should have health insurance, sick or dead people suck at raising children.

107

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Property rights. That is the only reason government needs to be involved in coupling at all.

EDIT: in contemporary times. I suppose 4000 years ago things may have been different.

108

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Property rights. That is the only reason government needs to be involved in coupling at all.

EDIT: in contemporary times. I suppose 4000 years ago things may have been different.[/quote]

I totally agree , The Gov has business in Divorce not Marriage

109

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.

110

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations …[/quote]

By the way, state recognized homosexual marriage would still do this, since you’ve only added a whole one (how generous!) other form of human relationship to the roster.

111

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Property rights. That is the only reason government needs to be involved in coupling at all.

EDIT: in contemporary times. I suppose 4000 years ago things may have been different.[/quote]

I totally agree , The Gov has business in Divorce not Marriage
[/quote]

I think the general argument is marriage automatically includes a ton of contracts which would be expensive, time consuming and some not even possible to obtain. Generally contracts like that are not needed in ideal circumstances but only when problems arise such as divorce or death. There are also other things such as hospital visitation rights.

112

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

I think the general argument is marriage automatically includes a ton of contracts which would be expensive, time consuming and some not even possible to obtain[/quote]

So, it’s difficult, emotional, and costly. So? Thought you were trying to work the individualist angle?

113

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.

114

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Documentation?

115

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Documentation?[/quote]

What part exactly? I thought it should be pretty obvious.

116

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? While we are at it they should probably handle our healthcare too, since they know whats best for us and all. After all, the smallest unit capable of raising children should have health insurance, sick or dead people suck at raising children.[/quote]

So now you’re anti-state recognized marriage? Just wondering if this painful shoe-horning of the individual mandate, which actively punishes for not having health insurance (as opposed to not punishing for not being married), into the conversation is honest, or are you simply grasping at straws. Are you advocating the libertarian position, or not? No homosexual marriage, because no marriages AT ALL? Yes, or no? Are you advocating the unraveling of all state recognized marriages? Or, are you flinging poo? We’re getting this straightened out right now, as I will not debate poo-flingers.

117

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]

Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]

Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]

Gays don’t have children as an inherent part of their nature. Not in homosexual relationships. Most definitely not in intact homes. The state has no interest in promoting it. The birds and bees of nature assures us the reproductive sexes will have children as a fact of life. When they do, and they do in large numbers, it is best in orderly, intact homes. Sorry, homoesexual relationships don’t deserve anymore recognition than a friendship. It isn’t special, wonderful, or in anyway important to society at large. If it vanished tomorrow, it’d be like a gnat farting in the wind. There is no rationale for the state to elevate homosexuality above friendships. That’s bigotry.

118

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

But you’re using my representative government to recognize and privilege homosexuality as if it’s more special (like, being critical to very fabric of society) than someone else’s friendship. That’s unjustifiably bigoted.
[/quote]

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

It doesn’t technically, but it is. The problem with letting the genie out, you cannot put him back in. So be carefull what you let out.

119

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If everybody is just minding their own business why is this shit constantly getting shoved down our collective throats?
Seems to me, if everybody is minding their own business, I should be pretty much be unaware that it’s even going on.
Seems to me this isn’t about everybody minding their own business at all, this about try to ram something people don’t want, down their throats and being told to like it or else.
The more militant this issue gets and the more bullshit gets associate with it, the more I become against it.
If people would just mind their own fucking business, this would have ever been a problem in the first place.[/quote]

If you are talking about the whole chicken thing then I agree but if you are talking about gay marriage then I don’t. No one is forcing anything down anyone’s throat in that case as if you are a heterosexual male no one is telling you, you have to marry a man. [/quote]

I mean, if everybody is minding their own business, then why is there this need of acceptance for something that does not require acceptance?

120

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]

Property rights. That is the only reason government needs to be involved in coupling at all.

EDIT: in contemporary times. I suppose 4000 years ago things may have been different.[/quote]

I totally agree , The Gov has business in Divorce not Marriage
[/quote]

How the heck does the Gov officiate divorce proceedings if it doesn’t even recognize that there is an actual divorce going on (as in, it must first recognize a marriage is present!). Come on already.